Filed: Sep. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 01, 2016
Summary: ORDER SHIVA V. HODGES , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the court on the motion of attorney William Gary White III, to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. [ECF No. 8]. The undersigned denies the motion without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Civ. Rule 83.I.07 (D.S.C.), which states in relevant part: Withdrawal of Appearance. No attorney whose appearance has been entered may withdraw his or her representation or be relieved as counsel except with leave of court on moti
Summary: ORDER SHIVA V. HODGES , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the court on the motion of attorney William Gary White III, to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. [ECF No. 8]. The undersigned denies the motion without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Civ. Rule 83.I.07 (D.S.C.), which states in relevant part: Withdrawal of Appearance. No attorney whose appearance has been entered may withdraw his or her representation or be relieved as counsel except with leave of court on motio..
More
ORDER
SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the court on the motion of attorney William Gary White III, to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. [ECF No. 8]. The undersigned denies the motion without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Civ. Rule 83.I.07 (D.S.C.), which states in relevant part:
Withdrawal of Appearance. No attorney whose appearance has been entered may withdraw his or her representation or be relieved as counsel except with leave of court on motion filed pursuant to this rule.
. . .
(B) If the withdrawal will leave the party unrepresented, the motion shall:
(1) Include the mailing address and telephone number for the party.
. . .
(3) Be filed along with either a consent to withdrawal signed by the party or a certification that the party has been provided a copy of the motion and an explanation of the party's right to object to withdrawal. The explanation shall inform the party of the date the motion was filed and state that any response must be received by the court within seventeen (17) days of the filing date. If the party is a natural person, the explanation shall advise that the response may be in the form of a letter signed by the party....
Local Civ. Rule 83.I.07 (D.S.C).
Plaintiff's counsel's motion is not signed. Additionally, it fails to include the mailing address and telephone number for Plaintiff. It also fails to be filed with a consent to withdrawal signed by Plaintiff or a certification that counsel has complied with the requirements of Local Civ. Rule 83.I.07(B)(3).
The court notes that Plaintiff has failed to provide a proposed summons for defendant Dennis Pruitt. If Plaintiff does not provide a summons for him by September 16, 2016, the undersigned will assume Plaintiff does not wish to sue Mr. Pruitt in this case. Further, Plaintiff has not provided a proof of service for any defendant. To the extent Plaintiff has effectuated service on any defendant, Plaintiff is directed to file proofs of service by September 16, 2016. The court notes defendants Timothy Bedford, Maureen Grewe, Harris Pastides, and Augusta Schneider have entered an appearance and have filed a motion to dismiss [ECF No. 6], which remains pending. Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss is due September 2, 2016. In light of the uncertainty of counsel's representation of Plaintiff, the court suspends the deadlines in this case until further order.
Counsel is directed to refile the motion to withdraw in compliance with Local Civ. Rule 83.I.07 (D.S.C.) by September 16, 2016. Otherwise, the court will expect counsel to continue representing Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
