Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Michael Shugert v. United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 14, 2010

MICHAEL SHUGERT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT.

ORDER

This case, in which plaintiff was originally proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On June 30, 2010, plaintiff filed a complaint in this action and paid the filing fee. Dckt. No. 1. The same day, the court issued its initial scheduling order. Dckt. No. 3. Among other things, that order directed plaintiff to complete service of process within 120 days (see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 4(m)), set a scheduling conference for November 10, 2010, and directed the parties to file status reports at least fourteen days prior to the conference.

On November 2, 2010, because plaintiff had not filed a status report, as required by the June 30 order, and had not yet effected service of process on defendant, the undersigned issued an order continuing the status conference and directing plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to follow court orders and for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m). Dckt. No.5.

On December 10, 2010, attorney Conal Doyle filed a notice of appearance on plaintiff's behalf and a response to the November 2 order to show cause. Dckt. Nos. 6, 7. In the response to the order to show cause, plaintiff's counsel indicated that his firm was recently retained to represent plaintiff and apologized to the court for plaintiff's failure to file a status report. Dckt. No. 7 at 2. The response also stated that service was effected on December 7, 2010. Id.

In light of plaintiff's counsel's response, the November 2 order to show cause will be discharged. Additionally, because plaintiff is now represented by counsel, the referral to the magistrate judge will be withdrawn and the case will be referred back to the district judge. Therefore, the January 12, 2011 status (pretrial scheduling) conference currently scheduled before the undersigned, Dckt. Nos. 3 and 5, will be vacated. The magistrate judge shall continue to perform the usual discovery tasks associated with ordinary civil cases.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The November 2, 2010 order to show cause is discharged;

2. The referral of this case to the magistrate judge is withdrawn and the case is referred back to the district judge; and

3. The January 12, 2011 status (pretrial scheduling) conference before the undersigned, Dckt. Nos. 3 and 5, is vacated.

SO ORDERED.

20101214

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.