TRZCINKA v. RAMIREZ, 6:15-cv-1055-Orl-31DAB. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20150911795
Visitors: 19
Filed: Aug. 12, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 12, 2015
Summary: ORDER GREGORY A. PRESNELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Verified Complaint ("Motion") (Doc. 10) filed on July 22, 2015. This Court's Local Rule 3.01(b) gave the Plaintiff fourteen days after service of the Motion to respond in opposition. While the parties jointly stipulated to the dismissal of the claims against Osceola Count, Florida, there was no dismissal as to Defendant Armando Ramirez. ( See Doc. 12). Twenty-one days
Summary: ORDER GREGORY A. PRESNELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Verified Complaint ("Motion") (Doc. 10) filed on July 22, 2015. This Court's Local Rule 3.01(b) gave the Plaintiff fourteen days after service of the Motion to respond in opposition. While the parties jointly stipulated to the dismissal of the claims against Osceola Count, Florida, there was no dismissal as to Defendant Armando Ramirez. ( See Doc. 12). Twenty-one days ..
More
ORDER
GREGORY A. PRESNELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Verified Complaint ("Motion") (Doc. 10) filed on July 22, 2015. This Court's Local Rule 3.01(b) gave the Plaintiff fourteen days after service of the Motion to respond in opposition. While the parties jointly stipulated to the dismissal of the claims against Osceola Count, Florida, there was no dismissal as to Defendant Armando Ramirez. (See Doc. 12). Twenty-one days have elapsed since the Motion was filed and the Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Motion as to Defendant Ramirez, it will therefore be considered unopposed.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion (Doc. 10) is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
