Newkirk v. Wade, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:23-cv-00346-MR-WCM
VERONICA D. NEWKIRK, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
TROOPER CHRISTOPHER )
COLTON WADE,
in his individual )
and official capacities; ) ORDER
TROOPERS JOHN DOES 1-2
, )
in their individual and official capacities; )
COMMANDER GLENN M. MCNEIL JR.,)
in his individual and official capacity; )
NORTH CAROLINA )
HIGHWAY PATROL; )
SECRETARY EDDIE BUFFALOE, JR., )
in his individual and official capacity; )
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT )
OF PUBLIC SAFETY; )
DEPUTIES JANE DOES 1-4, )
in their individual and official capacities; )
DETENTION CAPTAIN MICHAEL )
MAUNEY
, in his individual )
and official capacity; )
DETENTION MAJOR RODNEY FITCH, )
in his individual and official capacity; )
SHERIFF ALAN NORMAN, )
in his individual and official capacity; )
and )
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE )
COMPANY, )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________________ )
This matter is before the Court on the following
pro se filings by Plaintiff:
Case 1:23-cv-00346-MR-WCM Document 50 Filed 05/17/24 Page 1 of 4

1. “Motion to Vacate Parts of Order #40” (the “Motion to Vacate,” Doc.
47); and
2. “Motion to Permit Plaintiff Access for Filing Purposes to the Case
Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) System” (the “Motion
to E-File,” Doc. 48).
I. The Motion to Vacate1
Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate that portion of its May 1, 2024
Order that denied Plaintiff’s prior request for additional time to respond to
Motions to Dismiss that have been filed by Defendants, and “requests that
Response #42 and #44 be the response of record….” Doc. 47 at 4.
However, while the Court declined to strike Plaintiff’s initial responses
(Docs. 34, 35) to the Motions to Dismiss, it advised that her subsequent
responses (Docs. 42, 44) will be considered as supplemental responses to those
Motions.
Additionally, Plaintiff asks the Court to vacate that portion of the May
1, 2024 Order that denied her request for additional time to retain new counsel.
Plaintiff is welcome to continue to search for new counsel but the undersigned
is not persuaded that this matter should be delayed further while she does so.
1 The Court construes this Motion as being a request to reconsider portions of its prior
ruling.
Case 1:23-cv-00346-MR-WCM Document 50 Filed 05/17/24 Page 2 of 4

When Plaintiff’s prior counsel filed her Motion to Withdraw on February 14,
2024, she asked that Plaintiff be given 45 days to find substitute counsel.2
Plaintiff was later given to and including March 25, 2024 to retain new counsel.
Doc. 28. No substitute counsel appeared for her by that date, and none has
appeared since.
II. The Motion to E-File
This Court’s Administrative Procedures Governing Filing and Service by
Electronic Means (“Administrative Procedures”) provide that “parties
proceeding pro se may request in writing - solely for the purpose of the action
- to receive notice via e-mail whenever a pleading or other paper is filed
electronically in accordance with these procedures.” Administrative
Procedures, revised January 1, 2018, available on the Court’s website.
Plaintiff has requested such notice. Doc. 49.
However, the Administrative Procedures also state that “[p]arties
proceeding pro se shall not file electronically.” Id. While exceptions can be
made in specific cases, the undersigned is not persuaded that such a deviation
is warranted here.
2 Forty-five days from February 14, 2024 was March 30, 2024.
Case 1:23-cv-00346-MR-WCM Document 50 Filed 05/17/24 Page 3 of 4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1 The Motion to Vacate Parts of Order #40 (Doc. 47) is DENIED.
2 The Motion to Permit Plaintiff Access for Filing Purposes to the Case
Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) System (Doc. 48) is
DENIED.
Signed: May 17, 2024
Case 1:23-cv-00346-MR-WCM Document 50 Filed 05/17/24 Page 4 of 4