IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
October 11, 2006
RAHMIN CALDWELL,PRO SE, PLAINTIFF
CITY OF VINELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Simandle, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon the motion of Plaintiff pro se, Rahmin Caldwell, for an Order of Protection [Docket Item 7].
The Court has considered Plaintiff's submissions - a certification, a notice of motion and medical treatment records -and is unable to discern what relief Plaintiff is seeking at this time.
THE COURT FINDS as follows:
1. Plaintiff has not complied with Local Civ. R. 7.1(d), which requires him to file a brief in support of the motion or a statement that no brief is necessary and the reasons therefor;
2. Plaintiff has not complied with Local Civ. R. 7.1(e), which requires him to annex to his motion a proposed order; and
3. As a result of Plaintiff's violations of the Local Rules, Plaintiff has failed to inform the Court of what relief he is seeking, against whom and why he is seeking that relief.
4. Therefore, the Court will dismiss this motion [Docket Item 7] without prejudice, and Plaintiff is permitted to file a new motion that complies with the Rules and more clearly sets out what relief he is seeking, against whom and why.
The accompanying order will be entered.
JEROME B. SIMANDLE United States District Judge
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.