Puckett v. Chester County Sheriff's Office

Filing 19

ORDER granting 16 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Shannon D Puckett. Attorney Janet Elizabeth Rhodes terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 1/4/2016. (mwal)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Shannon D. Puckett, Plaintiff, vs. Chester County Sheriff’s Office, Defendant.   ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No.: 0:15-cv-1392-JMC-SVH ORDER This matter comes before the court on the motion of Janet E. Rhodes, Esq., of Callison Tighe & Robinson, LLC, to be relieved as counsel for Shannon D. Puckett (“Plaintiff”). [ECF No. 16]. Ms. Rhodes indicates that she and her staff have tried unsuccessfully on many occasions to contact Plaintiff via email, U.S. mail, and telephone, to participate in responding to discovery requests. Despite being informed by Ms. Rhodes by letter dated November 18, 2015, that if Plaintiff did not contact her office, Ms. Rhodes would be forced to file to be relieved as her counsel, Plaintiff failed to contact her. Id. Ms. Rhodes provided a copy of the motion to withdraw as counsel, filed on December 10, 2015, to Plaintiff. Id. In accordance with Local Civ. Rule 83.I.07(B), the motion also informs Plaintiff that she may file an objection to the motion within 17 days. Id. That time period has now passed, and Plaintiff did not file an objection to the motion. Therefore, the court grants Ms. Rhodes’s motion to withdraw. The court directs Plaintiff to notify the court by February 3, 2016, of the identity of the new attorney(s) she has retained to represent her in this case or, alternatively, of her desire to proceed with this litigation pro se, i.e., without an attorney. If Plaintiff does not wish to continue this lawsuit, she may request that the court dismiss the case in its entirety. To this end, Plaintiff shall, by February 3, 2016, complete the attached notice and mail it to the Clerk of Court at the address indicated. If Plaintiff fails to file the attached letter with the Clerk within the time prescribed, the court will consider her as proceeding pro se. Plaintiff is specifically advised that, if no new attorney is obtained to represent her interests, the court will expect this litigation to be conducted in accordance with all provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that the court is unable to provide her with legal advice. Failure to comply with court rules could have serious consequences including, but not limited to, striking her claims and dismissing the case against the Chester County Sheriff’s Office. IT IS SO ORDERED. January 4, 2016 Columbia, South Carolina Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge     2 Name: __________________________ Address___________________________ ___________________________ Clerk of Court United States District Court 901 Richland Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 In Re: 0:15-cv-01392-JMC-SVH Puckett v. Chester County Sheriff's Office Dear Ms. Blume: In response to the order of Judge Hodges dated January 4, 2016, I wish to advise as follows: _____ 1. I, ________________ (Printed Name), have obtained a new attorney to personally represent me in this matter. His [or her] name, address, and telephone number are as follows: __________________________________________ __________________________________________ OR _____ 2. I, ________________ (Printed Name), have NOT obtained a new attorney and will represent myself in this matter. I request that the Clerk of Court direct all notices and pleadings to me at the above address. I understand that I am obligated to comply with all provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to keep the Clerk of Court informed as to my proper address. _____ 3. I, ________________ (Printed Name), do not wish to continue this lawsuit and request that the court dismiss the case in its entirety. _____________________________________ ______________ Signature Date 3

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?