ROBERT NEAL PETTIT v. BETTY CUTTS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: March 3, 2000; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
1999-CA-001493-MR
ROBERT NEAL PETTIT
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM ROWAN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE WILLIAM B. MAINS, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 98-CI-90176
v.
BETTY CUTTS
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
GUDGEL, CHIEF JUDGE; COMBS AND MILLER, JUDGES.
MILLER, JUDGE:
Robert Neal Pettit brings this pro se appeal from
a May 13, 1999 Order of the Rowan Circuit Court.
We affirm.
On July 30, 1998, appellant filed a pro se civil
complaint against appellee.
Therein, he complained that appellee
in her role as Court Appointed Special Advocate acted outside and
beyond the scope of her authority and acted with prejudice,
malice intent, and gross negligence.
On March 16, 1999, appellee filed motion to dismiss
claiming immunity under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 411.200.
On May 13, 1999, the circuit court entered an order dismissing
the action with prejudice and ordering each party to bear its own
costs.
On May 22, 1999, appellant entered a motion to vacate
judgment claiming:
3. Plaintiff was granted by Court Order of
Feb. 19th, 1999 thirty (30) days to respond
to Defendant's motion when filed. Counsel
for Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on
March 15th, and a hearing was noticed therein
for 16th April 1999.
5. Plaintiff was notified by Defendant's
counsel prior to the expiration of
Plaintiff's 30 days that Defendant was
informed by the Court that the hearing of
April 16th would not be held nor motions
heard, and so informed Plaintiff. Plaintiff
was not informed by the Court as to the
reason why motions were not to be heard nor a
hearing held and so did not file response
within the 30 days granted Plaintiff by Court
Order of Feb. 19th. . . .
On May 25, 1999, the circuit court entered an order denying
appellant's motion to vacate.
This appeal follows.
Appellant's sole contention is that the circuit court
committed error by dismissing his action.
He states that he was
granted thirty days to respond to appellee's motion to dismiss by
a February 19, 1999 scheduling order.
Appellee counters that a
specific order was entered dealing with the motion for summary
judgment which allowed appellee thirty days to file same and
appellant twenty days to respond.
We view this argument as
irrelevant.
The record reveals that the motion to dismiss was filed
March 16, 1999.
The order dismissing the action was not entered
until May 13, 1999, some sixty days later.
After the filing of
the motion to dismiss and before the entry of the order of
dismissal, the record indicates that appellant never attempted to
file a response or to file a motion for extension of time to file
-2-
a response.
Thus, even if appellant was granted thirty days in
which to respond, he failed to do so.
Appellant's only response
came on May 22, 1999 as a motion to vacate judgment, some eight
days after the order of dismissal was entered.
Appellant asserts
he did not file a response to appellee's motion to dismiss
because the circuit court's office told him and his mother that
he had only twenty days to file a response and the response time
had run.
Such evidence, however, does not appear in the record
in the form of an affidavit or otherwise.
Upon the whole, we are
of the opinion that the circuit court did not commit reversible
error by dismissing appellant's action.
For the foregoing reasons, the Order of the Rowan
Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
PRO SE BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Robert Neal Pettit
Morehead, Kentucky
Kenneth W. Smith
Lexington, Kentucky
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
