Opinion
Civil Action 1:21-CV-86-GHD-DAS
09-09-2021
TAURUS TERRELL HARRIS PLAINTIFF v. SOUTH ATLANTIC GALVANIZING STEEL, INC. DEFENDANT
ORDER CLARIFYING ORDER ON MOTIONS
David A. Sanders, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The court earlier entered an order on the plaintiff's motions which inadvertently did not include the court's full intended ruling on the motion for a face-to-face- meeting and for a hearing on the motion to dismiss. To complete and clarify the court's order the following is substituted for the ruling on the motion for hearing.
3. MOTION FOR A HEARING
The plaintiff has also requested a face-to-face meeting as his preferred method of communicating with the court and requested an evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss. Though the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is required to be aware of and comply with the rules of the court. Any motions and responses before the court will be in writing. L.U.Civ 7. The court rarely holds in-person conferences and will do so in lieu of a normal motion practice. The court also does not usually hold oral argument in deciding motions and will not hold an evidentiary hearing in connection with a motion to dismiss. The court denies the motion for oral argument on the motion. The plaintiffs motion for a hearing is denied.
SO ORDERED .