Filed: Feb. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 19, 2015
Summary: ORDER BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS, District Judge. The Plaintiff brought this action seeking monetary damages for injuries she sustained while on vacation at Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort. On January 30, 2015, the defendants Mill End Enterprises and OWLE Construction, Inc., filed separate motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 6, 9.) Plaintiff's responses to these motions were due by February 17, 2015. As the Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motions to dismiss, it appears to the court that she wishe
Summary: ORDER BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS, District Judge. The Plaintiff brought this action seeking monetary damages for injuries she sustained while on vacation at Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort. On January 30, 2015, the defendants Mill End Enterprises and OWLE Construction, Inc., filed separate motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 6, 9.) Plaintiff's responses to these motions were due by February 17, 2015. As the Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motions to dismiss, it appears to the court that she wishes..
More
ORDER
BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS, District Judge.
The Plaintiff brought this action seeking monetary damages for injuries she sustained while on vacation at Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort. On January 30, 2015, the defendants Mill End Enterprises and OWLE Construction, Inc., filed separate motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 6, 9.) Plaintiff's responses to these motions were due by February 17, 2015.
As the Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motions to dismiss, it appears to the court that she wishes to abandon this action. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall have through March 2, 2015, in which to file her responses to the motions to dismiss. The Plaintiff is advised that if she fails to respond, this action will be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and for failure to comply with this Court's orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir.1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989). The dismissal will be considered an adjudication on the merits, i.e., with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
