Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In re Murphy, 2:19-cv-631-FtM-38. (2019)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20191115922 Visitors: 17
Filed: Nov. 14, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 14, 2019
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . Before the Court is Appellee Gabriel C. Murphy's Unopposed Motion for Leave of Court to File and Receive Pleadings Electronically via the Court's CM/ECF System (Doc. 12). CM/ECF is normally unavailable to non-lawyers. Murphy requests an exception because "[r]equiring Appellee to visit the Federal Courthouse in Fort Myers to file and receive pleadings would place an unnecessary inconvenience upon Appellee." (Doc. 12). The Court
More

OPINION AND ORDER1

Before the Court is Appellee Gabriel C. Murphy's Unopposed Motion for Leave of Court to File and Receive Pleadings Electronically via the Court's CM/ECF System (Doc. 12). CM/ECF is normally unavailable to non-lawyers. Murphy requests an exception because "[r]equiring Appellee to visit the Federal Courthouse in Fort Myers to file and receive pleadings would place an unnecessary inconvenience upon Appellee." (Doc. 12). The Court disagrees. Murphy has not shown that traveling to the Courthouse is overly onerous, particularly since his address is in this district. And if traveling to the Courthouse is inconvenient, Murphy can file documents by mail and access the docket and filings online by creating an account on pacer.gov.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

Appellee Gabriel C. Murphy's Unopposed Motion for Leave of Court to File and Receive Pleadings Electronically via the Court's CM/ECF System (Doc. 12) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. 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 websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. 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