Mccargo v. Hedrick

545 F.2d 393 (4th Cir. 1976)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

McCargo (P) instituted a lawsuit against Hedrick and others (D) claiming that P's horse racing license was wrongfully revoked. Under Local Rule 2.08 P was required to submit a pretrial statement to the court; that was done but it was incomplete, and the Magistrate instructed counsel that certain amendments to the proposed pretrial order were needed and eventually a proposed pretrial order was refilled. That was found wanting, and a third amended order was requested. That was not finished, and the court dismissed the case pursuant to Local Rule 2.09 for nonprosecution. P's attorney responded to this problem and claimed that the amended pretrial order could not be completed because of D's failure to provide him with lists of documentary evidence. P moved the court to retain the case on the docket. The case was removed from the docket and P appealed.