HARTMAN v. CITY OF ROSWELL, 2:17-cv-01105-KRS-SMV. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. New Mexico
Number: infdco20171205b66
Visitors: 16
Filed: Dec. 04, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 04, 2017
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE ANSWER OR SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY COURT SHOULD NOT DEEM DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS UNOPPOSED KEVIN R. SWEAZEA , Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), filed on November 14, 2017. [Doc. 5]. Under the Court's local rules, Plaintiff was required to submit a response on or before November 29, 2017. See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.4(a). To date,
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE ANSWER OR SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY COURT SHOULD NOT DEEM DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS UNOPPOSED KEVIN R. SWEAZEA , Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), filed on November 14, 2017. [Doc. 5]. Under the Court's local rules, Plaintiff was required to submit a response on or before November 29, 2017. See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.4(a). To date, P..
More
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE ANSWER OR SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY COURT SHOULD NOT DEEM DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS UNOPPOSED
KEVIN R. SWEAZEA, Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), filed on November 14, 2017. [Doc. 5]. Under the Court's local rules, Plaintiff was required to submit a response on or before November 29, 2017. See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.4(a). To date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants' motion, informed the Court of his non opposition to the relief requested, or otherwise placed the Court on notice of an agreed-on extension. Further, Local Rule 7.1(b) provides that a party's failure to respond "within the time prescribed for doing so constitutes consent to grant the motion." After considering the case's posture and before taking the measure of deeming Defendants' motion unopposed, the Court will order Plaintiff to either file a response or show cause in writing why the Court should not deem Plaintiff's failure to respond as consent to grant the motion to dismiss.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that on or before Friday, December 8, 2017, Plaintiff shall either file a response to Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or show cause in writing why the Court should not deem Plaintiff's failure consent to grant Defendants' motion.
Source: Leagle
