KARGARIAN v. AUTOZONE, 3:12CV144-MOC-DSC. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20120502b33
Visitors: 51
Filed: May 01, 2012
Latest Update: May 01, 2012
Summary: ORDER DAVID S. CAYER, Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT sua sponte regarding Defendant's "Partial Motion To Dismiss" (document #16) filed April 30, 2012. In accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison , 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Court advises Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se , that he has a right to respond to Defendant's Motion. The Court also advises Plaintiff that failure to respond may result in Defendant being granted the relief it seeks, that is, the DISMISS
Summary: ORDER DAVID S. CAYER, Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT sua sponte regarding Defendant's "Partial Motion To Dismiss" (document #16) filed April 30, 2012. In accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison , 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Court advises Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se , that he has a right to respond to Defendant's Motion. The Court also advises Plaintiff that failure to respond may result in Defendant being granted the relief it seeks, that is, the DISMISSA..
More
ORDER
DAVID S. CAYER, Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT sua sponte regarding Defendant's "Partial Motion To Dismiss" (document #16) filed April 30, 2012.
In accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Court advises Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, that he has a right to respond to Defendant's Motion. The Court also advises Plaintiff that failure to respond may result in Defendant being granted the relief it seeks, that is, the DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff is allowed until May 18, 2012 to respond to Defendant's "Partial Motion To Dismiss."
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
