U.S. v. CURETON, 3:14-cr-00229-MOC-DCK. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20150708c61
Visitors: 17
Filed: Jul. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 07, 2015
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the court on periodic review for compliance with court Orders. On June 2, 2015, this court Ordered that "Learned Counsel shall file with the court either a notice of adoption or withdrawal of any motions which were filed by interim counsel within 14 days of the entry of this Order." Order (#193) at 1. That deadline passed after June 19, 2015, and the court sent counsel for this defendant an email on July 1, 2015, advising t
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the court on periodic review for compliance with court Orders. On June 2, 2015, this court Ordered that "Learned Counsel shall file with the court either a notice of adoption or withdrawal of any motions which were filed by interim counsel within 14 days of the entry of this Order." Order (#193) at 1. That deadline passed after June 19, 2015, and the court sent counsel for this defendant an email on July 1, 2015, advising th..
More
ORDER
MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the court on periodic review for compliance with court Orders. On June 2, 2015, this court Ordered that "Learned Counsel shall file with the court either a notice of adoption or withdrawal of any motions which were filed by interim counsel within 14 days of the entry of this Order." Order (#193) at 1. That deadline passed after June 19, 2015, and the court sent counsel for this defendant an email on July 1, 2015, advising them of the missed deadline and of the necessity of filing a motion to reopen and enlarge such period by showing excusable neglect. Despite assurances from counsel that such deficiency would be remedied, six days have now passed with no action taken by counsel. Once a deadline is missed, promptness and diligence in curing a default are factors this court must consider in determining whether the neglect was excusable. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380, 391-92 (1993); Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 76 F.3d 530, 534 (4th Cir.1996).
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that this defendants pending motions filed by interim counsel (#s 53, 54, 55, 62, & 125) be calendared for further hearing.
Source: Leagle
