Eubanks v. Eubanks et al

Filing 21

ORDER directing Plaintiff to notify the court by June 16, 2017, of the identity of the new attorney(s) he has retained to represent him in this case, or alternatively, of his desire to proceed with this litigation pro se, i.e., without an attorney. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 5/26/2017. (mwal)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Marvin Eubanks, Plaintiff, vs. Holly Eubanks; South Carolina Department of Social Services; and Janice Chapman, individually for her actions as Lancaster County DSS Director, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No.: 0:17-54-TLW-SVH ORDER This matter comes before the court on the referral of pretrial management of this case to the undersigned. [ECF No. 20]. On May 25, 2017, the Honorable Terry L. Wooten, Chief United States District Judge, referred this matter to the undersigned pursuant to Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), as it appears Plaintiff is now proceeding pro se. Id. Because the docket is not clear that Plaintiff was mailed the court’s last order, out of an abundance of caution, the court directs Plaintiff to notify the court by June 16, 2017, of the identity of the new attorney(s) he has retained to represent him in this case or, alternatively, of his desire to proceed with this litigation pro se, i.e., without an attorney. If Plaintiff does not wish to continue this lawsuit, he may request that the court dismiss the case in its entirety. To this end, Plaintiff shall, by June 16, 2017, 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 him as proceeding pro se. Plaintiff is specifically advised that, if no new attorney is obtained to represent his 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 him with legal advice. Failure to comply with court rules could have serious consequences including, but not limited to, striking his claims and dismissing the case. Additionally, Plaintiff must keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing (901 Richland Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201) if his address changes for any reason. Failure to keep the court apprised of his current address may result in an order that this case be dismissed. The undersigned will issue an amended scheduling order to ensure the Plaintiff is advised of all deadlines in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED. May 26, 2017 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: 0:17-54-TLW-SVH Eubanks v. Eubanks, et. al. Dear Ms. Blume: In response to the order of Judge Hodges dated May 26, 2017, 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?