Underwood v. Montgomery County, Ohio et al

Filing 14

NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF - This case is before the Court upon the filing of a Report under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) by Defendants (Doc. No. 13). The Report recites that "Plaintiff has not contacted counsel for Defendants for purposes of conducting a Ru le 26 conference. Plaintiff's phone has been disconnected, and as such, counsel for Defendants is submitting this Report." Plaintiff is hereby advised that participation in the pretrial process is mandatory. Plaintiff must advise the Court not later than September 9, 2009, of a telephone number at which she can be reached for the pretrial conference or if she prefers to have the conference in person. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order and fails to appear for the pretrial conference, the case will be dismissed for want of prosecution. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 9/2/2009. (kopf1, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
KALA UNDERWOOD, Plaintiff, -vs: MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO, et al., Defendants. : Case No. 3:09-cv-083 Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF This case is before the Court upon the filing of a Report under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) by Defendants (Doc. No. 13). The Report recites that "Plaintiff has not contacted counsel for Defendants for purposes of conducting a Rule 26 conference. Plaintiff's phone has been disconnected, and as such, counsel for Defendants is submitting this Report." The Court's Order for Preliminary Pretrial Conference required, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that all parties engage in the process of conferring and preparing the Rule 26(f) Report. The Court attempted to contact Plaintiff by telephone the morning this Order was entered and was advised electronically that Plaintiff could not receive calls, thus confirming in part the experience of Defendants' counsel. Plaintiff is hereby advised that participation in the pretrial process is mandatory. Plaintiff must advise the Court not later than September 9, 2009, of a telephone number at which she can be reached for the pretrial conference or if she prefers to have the conference in person. If Plaintiff fails to comply

1

with this order and fails to appear for the pretrial conference, the case will be dismissed for want of prosecution. September 2, 2009.

s/ Michael R. Merz United States Magistrate Judge

2