Filed: Mar. 22, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 22, 2012
Summary: ORDER DENNIS L. HOWELL, Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court are the parties' Motions for Summary Judgment [#11 & #13]. Recently, this Court warned counsel for Plaintiff in a Memorandum and Recommendation entered in Pyles v. Astrue , as follows: The Court notes that counsel for Plaintiff has numerous social security appeals pending before the Court. In many of these cases, counsel has filed similar briefs that lack citations to legal authority and fail to clearly articulate the alleged
Summary: ORDER DENNIS L. HOWELL, Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court are the parties' Motions for Summary Judgment [#11 & #13]. Recently, this Court warned counsel for Plaintiff in a Memorandum and Recommendation entered in Pyles v. Astrue , as follows: The Court notes that counsel for Plaintiff has numerous social security appeals pending before the Court. In many of these cases, counsel has filed similar briefs that lack citations to legal authority and fail to clearly articulate the alleged ..
More
ORDER
DENNIS L. HOWELL, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court are the parties' Motions for Summary Judgment [#11 & #13]. Recently, this Court warned counsel for Plaintiff in a Memorandum and Recommendation entered in Pyles v. Astrue, as follows:
The Court notes that counsel for Plaintiff has numerous social security appeals pending before the Court. In many of these cases, counsel has filed similar briefs that lack citations to legal authority and fail to clearly articulate the alleged errors committed by the ALJ. The Court warns counsel that going forward, the Court will consider striking any brief submitted by counsel in a social security case that does not separately set forth each alleged error and contain legal authority supporting each of the claimant's alleged errors.
Pyles v. Astrue, No. 1:11cv116, slip. op. at 6-7 n.2 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 19, 2012) (Howell, Mag. J.). Plaintiff is represented by the same counsel in this case, V. Lamar Gudger, III, Esq. Like in Pyles, Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of her Motion for Summary Judgment fails to cite legal authority supporting each of her alleged errors. Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [#11] and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment [#12]. The Court, however, will allow Plaintiff twenty (20) days from the entry of this Order to submit a new motion and supporting brief. The Court will disregard any portion of the brief that is not supported by citations to legal authority. No extension of this deadline will be granted.
Moreover, the Court will not grant counsel any further extensions of time to file his briefs in any Social Security cases pending before the Court in which he represents the Plaintiff. If counsel cannot provide the Court with legal authority supporting his arguments, then no extension of time is needed to research and draft briefs with the Court. Finally, the Court INSTRUCTS counsel that the Court will not allow counsel an opportunity to submit a new brief in any case in which the brief was filed with the Court after the entry of this Order. Instead, the Court will strike the motion and brief as a matter of course and recommend to the District Court to dismiss without prejudice the complaint for failure to comply with a lawful Order of this Court.
