Carter et al v. Shelby County School System et al

Filing 115

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION re 112 TO RECUSE ORDER GRANTING APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM. Signed by Chief Judge J. Daniel Breen on 8/11/2015. (Breen, J.) Per footnote - clerk's office to mail copy of order to plaintiffs.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
CLEO CARTER and NIKKI CARTER,
Individually and as best friend of their minor
child, B.M.C.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 14-2241

SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM,
KASANDRA BERRY, and CLANCY
PATTERSON,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RECUSE ORDER
GRANTING APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM
_____________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the pro se motion of the Plaintiffs, Cleo and Niki Carter (collectively,
the “Carters”), to “recuse [the] order granting unopposed appointment of guardian ad litem.”
(Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 112.) For the reasons articulated herein, the relief sought is DENIED.
Under the local rules of this district,
[a] party represented by counsel who has appeared in a case may not act on his or
her own behalf unless that party’s attorney has obtained leave of the Court to
withdraw as counsel of record, provided that the Court may, in its discretion, hear
a party in open Court, notwithstanding the fact that the party is currently
represented by counsel of record.
LR 83.4(f), Local Rules of the U.S. Dist. Ct. for the W. Dist. of Tenn. (the “Local Rules”). The
complaint’s caption states that the Carters as the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, and the signature block
identifies Paul Forrest Craig and Daniel Lofton as the “Attorney[s] for Plaintiffs.” (D.E. 1 at 1,
13.) According to the docket, neither Craig nor Lofton have filed motions to withdraw in this
matter. As a consequence, the motion, which appears to have been prepared and filed without the

aid of or adoption by the Carters’ attorneys, violates the Local Rule. It is therefore STRICKEN
from the record. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to the Carters. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of August 2015.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The Carters did not provide their address when signing their motion, but it is identified at page 1 of D.E.

113-1.

2