Lewis v. Smith et al

Filing 11

ORDER re 10 Writ of Error Coram Nobis, deemed to be an Objection is OVERRULED and the Court affirms the Orders of Judge Cayer. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 1/4/2016. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(chh)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:15-cv-00606-MOC-DSC LORRAINE LEWIS, Plaintiff, Vs. ARCHIE L. SMITH III SMITH, DEBNAM, NARRON, DRAKE, SAINTISING & MYSERS KELLY S. KING BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY JEFF D. ROGERS, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER THIS MATTER is before the court on plaintiff’s pro se “Writ of Error Coram Nobis.” In such pleading, plaintiff challenges the authority of Judge Cayer to enter an order extending the time for defendants to file their answers or other responsive pleadings. For cause, plaintiff states that she has not consented to have any matter handled by a magistrate judge and that the moving defendants failed to send copies of their motions to her. As equitable remedies are not sought when a legal remedy is available, the court has deemed defendant’s request to be an Objection made in accordance with Rule 72 to the non-dispositive Orders of Judge Cayer. To the extent defendant objects to the authority of a magistrate judge to dispose of a nondispositive pretrial motion, her objection is without legal basis and is overruled. Under 28 U.S.C. § 626(b) a magistrate judge, when so designated, has the authority to dispose of nondispositive motions such as motions for enlargement of time. Judge Cayer has been so designated by the undersigned to exercise such authority. -1- To the extent defendant objects to the Orders based on non-receipt of copies of the motions from defendants, each motion contains a certificate of service indicating that plaintiff was sent a copy of the pleading via United States Mail. See Motions (#5 and #8). Plaintiff’s conclusion that defendants did not send her copies is unsupported; rather, all that plaintiff can proffer is that she did not receive such copies. Thus, the issue is whether non-receipt of the motions forms any basis for overturning the Orders of Judge Cayer. This court has carefully considered the motions and the relief afforded and finds that the Orders of Judge Cayer in no way prejudice plaintiff as they simply extend the time allowed for defendants to either Answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint, which is routinely granted in nearly every civil action. Such objection is overruled. Having considered plaintiff’s pro se motion and reviewed the pleadings, the court enters the following Order. ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff’s pro se Motion “Writ of Error Coram Nobis” (#10), deemed to be an Objection, is OVERRULED and the court affirms the Orders of Judge Cayer. Signed: January 4, 2016 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?