Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

HOLLAND v. SETERUS, INC., 2:14-cv-200-FtM-38DNF. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20141124934 Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 19, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 19, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on review of the docket. The only Plaintiff in this action that filed a Response to the Court's October 6, 2014, Order ( Doc. #18 ) was Plaintiff Ocey Holland. ( Doc. #19 ). Because the Court's Order indicated that this case would be dismissed without further notice if Plaintiffs did not seek new counsel or elect to proceed pro se, and advise the Court of their decision by October 30, 2014, the remaining Pla
More

ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on review of the docket. The only Plaintiff in this action that filed a Response to the Court's October 6, 2014, Order (Doc. #18) was Plaintiff Ocey Holland. (Doc. #19). Because the Court's Order indicated that this case would be dismissed without further notice if Plaintiffs did not seek new counsel or elect to proceed pro se, and advise the Court of their decision by October 30, 2014, the remaining Plaintiffs are hereby dismissed from this action.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Plaintiffs Kevin Beard, Talmadge Meade, Charles Jones, Nancy Talavera, Aminta Allen, and Chaudhry Ashraf are hereby DISMISSED from this action. This case is to remain active only as to Plaintiff Ocey Holland.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer