KIRKENDALL v. PARKER, 6:14-cv-776-Orl-37DAB. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20141105c83
Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 05, 2014
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON Jr., District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31), filed October 6, 2014. Local Rule 3.01(b) requires that a "party opposing a motion . . . shall file within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion . . . a response that includes a memorandum of legal authority in opposition to the request, all of which the respondent shall include in a document not more than twenty (20) pages." Allotting three additional days for service,
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON Jr., District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31), filed October 6, 2014. Local Rule 3.01(b) requires that a "party opposing a motion . . . shall file within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion . . . a response that includes a memorandum of legal authority in opposition to the request, all of which the respondent shall include in a document not more than twenty (20) pages." Allotting three additional days for service, ..
More
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON Jr., District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31), filed October 6, 2014. Local Rule 3.01(b) requires that a "party opposing a motion . . . shall file within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion . . . a response that includes a memorandum of legal authority in opposition to the request, all of which the respondent shall include in a document not more than twenty (20) pages." Allotting three additional days for service, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), Plaintiff's response to Defendants' Motion was due by October 23, 2014. When Plaintiff failed to respond, the Court directed a response on or before November 3, 2014. (See Doc. 34.) The November 3 deadline has passed, and Plaintiff still has not filed a response in opposition to Defendants' motion.
Upon consideration, the Court considers Defendants' Motion to be unopposed (see Local Rule 3.01(b)) and finds that it is due to be granted. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) is GRANTED.
2. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in regards to Defendants Wayne Ivey, Mike Lewis, Darrell Hibbs, Susan Jeter, Gregory Robertson, Randy Beville, Ron Tomblin, Brian Seeley, Alan Rainey, and Greg Davis. On or before Tuesday, November 25, 2014, Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint.1
3. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is also is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in regards to Defendant Jack Parker for Plaintiff's failure to serve him within 120 days after the Complaint was filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
DONE AND ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. If Plaintiff chooses to file an Amended Complaint, the Court encourages her to make use of the resources available to pro se litigants on the Court's website at http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/pro se/default.htm. This litigation is well underway, and the Court will consider dismissing further iterations of the Complaint with prejudice. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that pro se litigants are subject to the same law and rules of court as litigants who are represented by counsel, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's Local Rules).
Source: Leagle
