U.S. v. PAGE, 12-60064-CR-ROSENBAUM. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
Number: infdco20120731716
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jul. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 19, 2012
Summary: ORDER ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Marc Seaver Page's pro se Verified Demand for a Bill of Particulars [D.E. 36] and Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 37]. Defendant is represented by counsel in this matter, so the Court will not entertain his pro se filings. See Gore v. Crosby, 2006 WL 4847609, *32 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2006) (citing McMeans v. Brigano, 228 F.3d 674 , 684 (6 th Cir. 2000); Tarter v. Hury, 646 F.2d 1010
Summary: ORDER ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Marc Seaver Page's pro se Verified Demand for a Bill of Particulars [D.E. 36] and Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 37]. Defendant is represented by counsel in this matter, so the Court will not entertain his pro se filings. See Gore v. Crosby, 2006 WL 4847609, *32 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2006) (citing McMeans v. Brigano, 228 F.3d 674 , 684 (6 th Cir. 2000); Tarter v. Hury, 646 F.2d 1010 ..
More
ORDER
ROBIN S. ROSENBAUM, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Marc Seaver Page's pro se Verified Demand for a Bill of Particulars [D.E. 36] and Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 37]. Defendant is represented by counsel in this matter, so the Court will not entertain his pro se filings. See Gore v. Crosby, 2006 WL 4847609, *32 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2006) (citing McMeans v. Brigano, 228 F.3d 674, 684 (6th Cir. 2000); Tarter v. Hury, 646 F.2d 1010, 1014 (5th Cir. June 1, 1981)1). Accordingly, Defendant's pro se Verified Demand for a Bill of Particulars [D.E. 36] and Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 37] are hereby DENIED without prejudice. Should Defendant's counsel deem such filings to be appropriate, consistent with his duties as counsel for Defendant, counsel for
DONE and ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Pursuant to Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), opinions of the Fifth Circuit issued prior to October 1, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit.
Source: Leagle
