Boyton v. Xerox Commercial Solutions, LLC et al
ORDER denying 20 Motion for Relief for Defamation Of Character, Slander, Libel, Negligence And Intentionally Infliction Of Emotional Distress. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 2/7/18. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(mga)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-505-RJC-DCK
XEROX COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC,
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff’s “Defamation Of Character,
Slander, Libel, Negligence And Intentionally Infliction Of Emotional Distress” (Document No.
20) filed February 7, 2018. This filing has been construed by the Clerk’s Office as a “motion” and
has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Having
carefully considered the “motion,” the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will deny
the motion, without prejudice.
Plaintiff Vernon Boyton is appearing in this matter pro se. Mr. Boyton filed an “Amended
Complaint” (Document No. 11) asserting claims for employment discrimination on October 30,
2017. Also pending are: “Defendants’ Second Motion To Compel Arbitration And Dismiss Or
In The Alternative To Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration” (Document No. 13); Plaintiff’s
“Motion and Order for a Temporary Restraint Order” (Document No. 15); and Plaintiff’s “Motion
to Dismiss Xerox’s Dispute Resolution Plan…” (Document No. 18).
It is unclear exactly what the pro se Plaintiff is seeking to accomplish by the instant filing,
which does not appear to be supported by any reference to legal authority. (Document No. 20).
Yesterday, February 6, 2018, was Plaintiff’s deadline to file a reply brief in support of his “Motion
to Dismiss Xerox’s Dispute Resolution Plan…” (Document No. 18), but this filing does not appear
to reference that motion or Defendants’ response. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to amend his
Complaint, again, he should file a proper motion that clearly states what relief he is seeking and
the grounds for such a motion. See Local Rule 7.1; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 15.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Defamation Of Character, Slander,
Libel, Negligence And Intentionally Infliction Of Emotional Distress” (Document No. 20) is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Signed: February 7, 2018
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?