Taurean Small v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., et al.

E.D. North Carolina

Taurean Small v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., et al.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedOctober 28, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00332

StatusUnknown

This text of Taurean Small v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., et al. (Taurean Small v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taurean Small v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., et al., (E.D.N.C. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:25-CV-00332-M TAUREAN SMALL, Plaintiff, ORDER TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the court on several filings: Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment, DE 10, Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal, DE 11, Plaintiff's Notice Regarding E-Noticing Failure, DE 12, and two letters from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, DE 15 & 16. In his motion, Plaintiff explains that, despite opting in to electronic noticing, he did not receive electronic notice of the Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R), DE 7, his deadline to object to the M&R, the court’s order adopting the M&R, DE 7, or the judgement of the court, DE 8. Because Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, this court did not consider the motion or notice regarding e-noticing—deferring to the gencral rule that “when [a] notice of appeal [is] filed it divest[s] the district court of its jurisdiction over the case and confer[s] jurisdiction upon [the appellate court}.” See, e.g., United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 767 (4th Cir. 1993). However, the Fourth Circuit has now informed the court that it “will treat the notice of appeal as filed as of the date the district court disposes of [Plaintiff's motion for relief] and will docket the appeal following disposition of the motion.” DE 15. Accordingly, the court may consider Plaintiffs motion. Because Plaintiff's claim of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect,” is meritorious, Plaintiffs Motion for Relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), DE 10, is GRANTED. The court’s order, DE 7, and judgment, DE 8, are VACATED. Plaintiff shall file any objections to the M&R no later than Wednesday, November 12, 2025. The court also recognizes that following the entry of this order, the Fourth Circuit will “docket the appeal.” DE 15. That will, again, divest this court of jurisdiction over the case. Christy, 3 F.3d at 767. The court, therefore, reminds Plaintiff that it cannot rule on his objections to the M&R until the Fourth ak disposed of his appeal. SO ORDERED this 2 ___ day of October, 2025.

RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:25-CV-00332-M TAUREAN SMALL, Plaintiff, ORDER TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the court on several filings: Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment, DE 10, Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal, DE 11, Plaintiff's Notice Regarding E-Noticing Failure, DE 12, and two letters from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, DE 15 & 16. In his motion, Plaintiff explains that, despite opting in to electronic noticing, he did not receive electronic notice of the Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R), DE 7, his deadline to object to the M&R, the court’s order adopting the M&R, DE 7, or the judgement of the court, DE 8. Because Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, this court did not consider the motion or notice regarding e-noticing—deferring to the gencral rule that “when [a] notice of appeal [is] filed it divest[s] the district court of its jurisdiction over the case and confer[s] jurisdiction upon [the appellate court}.” See, e.g., United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 767 (4th Cir. 1993). However, the Fourth Circuit has now informed the court that it “will treat the notice of appeal as filed as of the date the district court disposes of [Plaintiff's motion for relief] and will docket the appeal following disposition of the motion.” DE 15. Accordingly, the court may consider Plaintiffs motion. Because Plaintiff's claim of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect,” is meritorious, Plaintiffs Motion for Relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), DE 10, is GRANTED. The court’s order, DE 7, and judgment, DE 8, are VACATED. Plaintiff shall file any objections to the M&R no later than Wednesday, November 12, 2025. The court also recognizes that following the entry of this order, the Fourth Circuit will “docket the appeal.” DE 15. That will, again, divest this court of jurisdiction over the case. Christy, 3 F.3d at 767. The court, therefore, reminds Plaintiff that it cannot rule on his objections to the M&R until the Fourth ak disposed of his appeal. SO ORDERED this 2 ___ day of October, 2025.

RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Taurean Small v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taurean-small-v-takeda-pharmaceuticals-usa-et-al-nced-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack