LAW v. TOWN OF FAIRFAX

C/A No. 1:15-3309-JMC-SVH.

Charles Law, Sr., and Betty J. Law, Plaintiffs, v. The Town of Fairfax, an Incorporated South Carolina Municipality; Officer John Doe, Individually as a police officer for the Town of Fairfax; and Officer J. Singleton, Individually as a police officer for the Town of Fairfax, Defendants.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983pr
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983pr (Other)
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Charles Law, Sr, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Betty J Law, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Fairfax, The Town of, Defendant, represented by Christy L. Scott , Law Office of Christy Scott LLC.

Officer Sam Watson, Defendant, represented by Christy L. Scott , Law Office of Christy Scott LLC.

Officer Jamie Singleton, Defendant, represented by Christy L. Scott , Law Office of Christy Scott LLC.


ORDER

SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge.

Charles Law, Sr., and Betty J. Law ("Plaintiffs") filed this civil rights action alleging claims of gross negligence, violations of Mr. Law's constitutional rights, and assault and battery.1 They sue the Town of Fairfax ("Town"), and John Doe ("Doe") and J. Singleton ("Singleton"), individually as police officers for Town (collectively "Defendants"). This matter comes before the court on the motion of Glenn Walters, Sr., Esq., and Michael R. Culler, Esq., to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs.2 [ECF No. 41].3

On July 12, 2017, the undersigned held a telephonic status conference with all counsel and Mr. Law, during which Plaintiff indicated he planned to obtain new counsel. [ECF No. 42]. The court directed Plaintiff that any substitute counsel should make a notice of appearance by August 2, 2017. Id. The court also extended the scheduling order as reflected in the undersigned's Fifth Amended and Final Scheduling Order, but advised the parties that no further extensions would be granted. [ECF No. 43].

No substitute counsel has appeared for Mr. Law, and he has not objected to the motion to withdraw. The court grants Plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw. [ECF No. 41]. Mr. Law is specifically advised that the court expects this litigation to be conducted in accordance with all provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that the court is unable to provide him with legal advice. Failure to comply with court rules could have serious consequences including, but not limited to, striking his claims and dismissing the case against Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Mrs. Law sues for loss of consortium resulting from Mr. Law's claims of gross negligence and assault and battery.
2. On June 30, 2017, Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion that noted that Mrs. Law was deceased and that Mr. Law is the personal representative for her estate. [ECF No. 36]. Mr. Law has been advised that he cannot represent the interest of Mrs. Law's estate pro se and if no one files a notice of substitution, the claims of Mrs. Law will be dismissed. [ECF No. 39].
3. Plaintiff's counsel previously filed a motion to withdraw [ECF No. 36] that the undersigned denied without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Civ. R. 83.I.07 (D.S.C.) [ECF No. 38].

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases