This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

McCargo (P) instituted a lawsuit against Hedrick and others (D) claiming that P's horse racing license was wrongfully revoked. Under Local Rule 2.08 P was required to submit a pretrial statement to the court; that was done but it was incomplete, and the Magistrate instructed counsel that certain amendments to the proposed pretrial order were needed and eventually a proposed pretrial order was refilled. That was found wanting, and a third amended order was requested. That was not finished, and the court dismissed the case pursuant to Local Rule 2.09 for nonprosecution. P's attorney responded to this problem and claimed that the amended pretrial order could not be completed because of D's failure to provide him with lists of documentary evidence. P moved the court to retain the case on the docket. The case was removed from the docket and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.