Charlot v. Donley et al

Filing 24

ORDER directing clerk to remove from the docket the additional attachments to 1 Complaint submitted on 6/21/2011, re 19 Additional Attachments to Main Document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J Gossett on 6/30/2011. (jpet, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Vera Shepard Charlot,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Honorable Michael B. Donley, Secretary of the )
Air Force; Terry St. Peter; Dawn M. Moore; and )
Clayton D. Leishman,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 3:11-579-CMC-PJG

ORDER

Plaintiff Vera Shepard Charlot, who is self-represented, filed this action against the named
defendants alleging employment discrimination. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) DSC for pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiff has submitted two documents entitled “Exhibit V” and “Exhibit W” which the
plaintiff appears to intend the court to attach to her Complaint. (ECF No. 19.)1 However, these
attachments appear to be more appropriately presented as exhibits in connection with a dispositive
motion or at trial. Moreover, the plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure that specify the form of pleadings, signature requirements for pleadings,
and procedures for amending pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10, 11, & 15. Therefore, to the extent
that the plaintiff seeks to add attachments to her Complaint, her request is denied without prejudice
to present these exhibits and documents at the appropriate stage of these proceedings if otherwise
permitted by law.
1

The plaintiff previously separately submitted Exhibits A-U, which the Clerk of Court
appended to the plaintiff’s original Complaint prior to service on the defendants.
Page 1 of 2

The Clerk of Court is directed to remove the plaintiff’s additional attachments (currently
docketed as ECF No. 19) from the docket and return the originals to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is
advised that future filings must conform to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules,
and the court’s filing preferences, none of which contemplate the sporadic and haphazard submission
of evidence to the Clerk of Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
June 30, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2