United States of America v. Bogart et al

Filing 87

ORDER: Pending before the Court are multiple filings by Defendants Dustin and Marcy Bogart and Jerry Speer, who purports to represent Southern Country Ranch pro se as Trustee. To the extent the Bogart defendants' Motion to Dismiss 66 (along w ith a "statement in support" 73 ) asks the Court to reconsider its earlier Order 61 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, it is hereby DENIED. To the extent the "Notice of Status and Statement in Opposit ion to Order and Motion to Show Cause and Motion to Void and Annul All Orders" 78 filed by Speer states objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) to the Magistrate Judge's Order of 11/29/2012 70 , those objections are hereby DENIED. To t he extent it states objections to the Magistrate Judge's earlier orders, those objections are hereby DENIED as untimely. Nothing in this Order disturbs the Magistrate Judge's ruling that Speer is not permitted to represent a trust pro se in this court. This case is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further case management. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 3/26/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DUSTIN B. BOGART, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:12-0179 Judge Sharp ORDER Pending before the Court are multiple filings by Defendants Dustin and Marcy Bogart and Jerry Speer, who purports to represent Southern Country Ranch pro se as Trustee. To the extent the Bogart defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 66) (along with a “statement in support” (Docket No. 73)) asks the Court to reconsider its earlier Order (Docket No. 61) adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, it is hereby DENIED. To the extent the “Notice of Status and Statement in Opposition to Order and Motion to Show Cause and Motion to Void and Annul All Orders” (Docket No. 78) filed by Speer states objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) to the Magistrate Judge’s Order of November 29, 2012 (Docket No. 70), those objections are hereby DENIED. To the extent it states objections to the Magistrate Judge’s earlier orders, those objections are hereby DENIED as untimely. Nothing in this Order disturbs the Magistrate Judge’s ruling that Speer is not permitted to represent a trust pro se in this court. This case is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further case management. It is SO ORDERED. ____________________________________ KEVIN H. SHARP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE     

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?