Walker v. Taylor

E.D. North Carolina

Walker v. Taylor

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedJuly 16, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00411

StatusUnknown

This text of Walker v. Taylor (Walker v. Taylor) 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

Walker v. Taylor, (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-0041 1-M ROBERT JOSEPH WALKER, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER CENESS LUTHER TAYLOR, et al., Defendants. ) a) This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs pro se “Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [TRO] and Preliminary Injunction” [DE 5]. To receive injunctive relief without “notice to the adverse party,” Plaintiff must (1) set forth “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint” that ‘‘clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant,” (2) ‘‘certif[y] in writing any efforts made to give notice [to Defendants] and the reasons why it should not be required,” and (3) “give[] security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) & (c). Plaintiff has not complied with any of these requirements. His emergency motion is accompanied by no affidavit (or supporting memorandum), and he did not verify the factual allegations in his complaint, certify in writing any efforts he undertook to provide notice to the adverse parties, or provide a TRO bond. See DE 1; DE 5S. Documents filed pro se are to be liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). But “the liberal construction of a pro se plaintiff's pleading does not require the court to

ignore clear defects.” Chrisp v. Univ. of N. Carolina-Chapel Hill, 471 F. Supp. 3d 713, 716 (M.D.N.C. 2020). Even pro se parties must comply with “procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation,” McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993), “without which effective judicial administration would be impossible,” Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff's noncompliance with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure compels denial of his motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's emergency motion [DE 5] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED this ah day of July, 2025.

( = ( at 2 Ws AME em 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-0041 1-M ROBERT JOSEPH WALKER, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER CENESS LUTHER TAYLOR, et al., Defendants. ) a) This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs pro se “Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [TRO] and Preliminary Injunction” [DE 5]. To receive injunctive relief without “notice to the adverse party,” Plaintiff must (1) set forth “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint” that ‘‘clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant,” (2) ‘‘certif[y] in writing any efforts made to give notice [to Defendants] and the reasons why it should not be required,” and (3) “give[] security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) & (c). Plaintiff has not complied with any of these requirements. His emergency motion is accompanied by no affidavit (or supporting memorandum), and he did not verify the factual allegations in his complaint, certify in writing any efforts he undertook to provide notice to the adverse parties, or provide a TRO bond. See DE 1; DE 5S. Documents filed pro se are to be liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). But “the liberal construction of a pro se plaintiff's pleading does not require the court to

ignore clear defects.” Chrisp v. Univ. of N. Carolina-Chapel Hill, 471 F. Supp. 3d 713, 716 (M.D.N.C. 2020). Even pro se parties must comply with “procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation,” McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993), “without which effective judicial administration would be impossible,” Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff's noncompliance with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure compels denial of his motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's emergency motion [DE 5] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED this ah day of July, 2025.

( = ( at 2 Ws AME em RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Walker v. Taylor, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-taylor-nced-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack