Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

17-1038 - Harris v. Unique Automotive, Inc. et al

Download Files


Document in Context
17-1038 - Harris v. Unique Automotive, Inc. et al
March 1, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER: Counsel is undoubtedly aware that "strict compliance with orders of a district court is an important duty of counsel," Carter, 636 F.2d at 161, yet, in his Objection, he does not express even a modicum of regret or contrition for his failure to comply with Magistrate Judge Brown's Order. In fact, the failure to comply with a court Order is not even mentioned. The Court finds this a bit disconcerting. Nevertheless, the Court believes that Magistrate Judge Brown's recommendation that this case be dismissed serves as sufficient warning to counsel that Orders of the Court must be followed and cases must be diligently pursued. For the foregoing reasons, the R & R (Doc. No. 24) is VACATED. This case is returned to Magistrate Judge Brown for further pretrial case management. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 3/1/2018. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg) Modified text on 3/5/2018 (mg).