Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JAMES CLARKE, ET UX. * * v. * Civil No. JFM-07-3111 * SCHOCHOR, FEDERICO AND STATON, * ET AL. * ***** MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff originally filed this action for legal malpractice in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Upon a motion to transfer filed by defendants, the action was transferred to this District. Thereafter, defendants filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. After being advised of the consequences of a failure to do so, plaintiffs (who are appearing pro se) failed to respond to the motion. It is clear from the record as it now exists that plaintiffs cannot prevail on their claim. Rather, the record demonstrates that the dismissal of plaintiff's medical malpractice claim (in which defendants for a time represented plaintiffs) in the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland, was due to plaintiff's own defaults and occurred after the appearance of defendants as their counsel had been stricken by the court. Accordingly, defendants' motion will be treated as one for summary judgment and, as such, will be granted.

Date: January 10, 2008

__/s/__________________________ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JAMES CLARKE, ET UX. * * v. * Civil No. JFM-07-3111 * SCHOCHOR, FEDERICO AND STATON, * ET AL. * ***** ORDER For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is, this 10th day of January 2008 ORDERED 1. Defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment is treated as one for summary judgment and, as such, is granted; and 2. Judgment is granted in favor of defendants against plaintiffs.

__/s/_____________________ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge

2



Download James Clarke v. Schochor, Federico and Staton.pdf

Maryland Law