/  2
 
(Continued)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIANOTICE OF ERRORS AND/OR DEFICIENCIES IN DOCUMENTS FILED IN CM/ECFDATE:
9/18/09
CASE #:
4:09-CV-106 (CDL)
CASE TITLE:
Rhodes v. MacDonald
DOCUMENT #:
15
DOCUMENT TITLE:
Plaintiff's Request for Stay of Deployment Pending Motions forRehearing and to Amend or Alter Judgment
One of the following errors/deficiencies has been identified in the document listed above:
9
Document e-filed in wrong case
9
Document linked to incorrect document
9
Document exceeds page limits
9
Document requires leave of Court before filing
9
Dismissal must be signed by all parties who have appeared OR by leave of court. ( SeeFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.)
9
Incorrect case number on document
:
Incorrect event used - use event
Civil, Motions and Related Filings, Motions, Stay
:
Document is not signed
9
Proposed Order is attached incorrectly (should be filed as an attachment to the maindocument being e-filed
9
Certificate of service is missing
9
Corporate Parents and/or Other Affiliates were not added.
9
Certification regarding two or more signatures is missing (see page 10 of 
 AdministrativeProcedures for Electronic Filing)
9
Discovery documents, including disclosures under FRCP 26(a)(1) and (2), discoveryrequests and responses, and certificates of service of discovery, are not to be filed unlessaccompanied by a Certificate of Need to File Discovery.
9
Other:
Case 4:09-cv-00106-CDL Document 16 Filed 09/18/2009 Page 1 of 2

RHODES v MacDONALD - 16 - Notice of Error in Filing (related document(s): 15 [RECAP] Brief filed by Connie Rhodes) (tlf). (Entered: 09/18/2009) - Gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.16.0

Download this Document for FreePrint
This is a private document.

Info and Rating

Jack Ryan

Share & Embed

More from this user

Add a Comment

Characters: ...

AuBrickerleft a comment

Is there a copy of the corrected motion online?
10 / 22 / 2009
Reply

AuBricker replied:

Thanks. I'm trying to write a blog entry on Rhodes v. MacDonald, but Orly's mad motions have made me dizzy.
11 / 15 / 2009

Jack Ryan replied:

You are correct, in that she never filed a corrected version, which would have been simple enough. What she did instead in filed one of her nonsense documents...surprised? I'll see if I can remember which one and let you know.
11 / 15 / 2009

AuBricker replied:

Thanks
11 / 15 / 2009

Jack Ryan replied:

According to the docket entries, no corrected motion was ever filed and the motion was dismissed.
10 / 22 / 2009