Law et al v. Fairfax, The Town of et al
ORDER granting 41 Second MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorneys Michael R Culler and Glenn Walters terminated for Plaintiffs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 8/7/2017. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Charles Law, Sr., and Betty J. Law,
The Town of Fairfax, an Incorporated
South Carolina Municipality; Officer
John Doe, Individually as a police
officer for the Town of Fairfax; and
Officer J. Singleton, Individually as a
police officer for the Town of Fairfax,
C/A No.: 1:15-3309-JMC-SVH
Charles Law, Sr., and Betty J. Law (“Plaintiffs”) filed this civil rights action
alleging claims of gross negligence, violations of Mr. Law’s constitutional rights, and
assault and battery.1 They sue the Town of Fairfax (“Town”), and John Doe (“Doe”) and
J. Singleton (“Singleton”), individually as police officers for Town (collectively
“Defendants”). This matter comes before the court on the motion of Glenn Walters, Sr.,
Esq., and Michael R. Culler, Esq., to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs.2 [ECF No.
Mrs. Law sues for loss of consortium resulting from Mr. Law’s claims of gross
negligence and assault and battery.
On June 30, 2017, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion that noted that Mrs. Law was
deceased and that Mr. Law is the personal representative for her estate. [ECF No. 36].
Mr. Law has been advised that he cannot represent the interest of Mrs. Law’s estate pro
se and if no one files a notice of substitution, the claims of Mrs. Law will be dismissed.
[ECF No. 39].
On July 12, 2017, the undersigned held a telephonic status conference with all
counsel and Mr. Law, during which Plaintiff indicated he planned to obtain new counsel.
[ECF No. 42]. The court directed Plaintiff that any substitute counsel should make a
notice of appearance by August 2, 2017. Id. The court also extended the scheduling order
as reflected in the undersigned’s Fifth Amended and Final Scheduling Order, but advised
the parties that no further extensions would be granted. [ECF No. 43].
No substitute counsel has appeared for Mr. Law, and he has not objected to the
motion to withdraw. The court grants Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. [ECF No.
41]. Mr. Law is specifically advised that the court expects 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 against Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 7, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff’s counsel previously filed a motion to withdraw [ECF No. 36] that the
undersigned denied without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Civ. R. 83.I.07
(D.S.C.) [ECF No. 38].
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?