McCarter v. Stoudenmier, 3:16-CV-707-DCK. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20180806958
Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 03, 2018
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. KEESLER , Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT regarding Plaintiffs' "Motion In Limine As To General Matters" (Document No. 61). The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will deny the pending motion without prejudice. The undersigned notes that this Court previously directed tha
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. KEESLER , Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT regarding Plaintiffs' "Motion In Limine As To General Matters" (Document No. 61). The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will deny the pending motion without prejudice. The undersigned notes that this Court previously directed that..
More
ORDER
DAVID C. KEESLER, Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT regarding Plaintiffs' "Motion In Limine As To General Matters" (Document No. 61). The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will deny the pending motion without prejudice.
The undersigned notes that this Court previously directed that:
Any motions filed during the remainder of this case shall indicate that counsel have consulted with each other as required by Local Rule 7.1 (b). Moreover, the parties shall strictly comply with all deadlines set forth in the "Pretrial Order And Case Management Plan" (Document No. 12), the Local Rules, and as directed by the Court.
(Document No. 52, p. 1).
The instant motion does not appear to satisfy the undersigned previous direction and Local Rule 7.1(b). See (Document No. 61).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that regarding Plaintiffs' "Motion In Limine As To General Matters" (Document No. 61) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may file a renewed motion on or before August 6, 2018.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
