McIVER v. HUMPHREY, 5:12-CV-156 (MTT). (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20120712934
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 11, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2012
Summary: ORDER TO RESPOND CHARLES H. WEIGLE, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Carl Humphrey. Doc. 9. Since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court deems it appropriate and necessary to advise him of his obligation to respond and of the consequences which he may suffer if he fails to file a proper response. Plaintiff is advised: 1. that a Motion to Dismiss has been filed by Defendant Humphrey; 2. that he has the right to oppose the granting of that motio
Summary: ORDER TO RESPOND CHARLES H. WEIGLE, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Carl Humphrey. Doc. 9. Since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court deems it appropriate and necessary to advise him of his obligation to respond and of the consequences which he may suffer if he fails to file a proper response. Plaintiff is advised: 1. that a Motion to Dismiss has been filed by Defendant Humphrey; 2. that he has the right to oppose the granting of that motion..
More
ORDER TO RESPOND
CHARLES H. WEIGLE, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Carl Humphrey. Doc. 9. Since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court deems it appropriate and necessary to advise him of his obligation to respond and of the consequences which he may suffer if he fails to file a proper response.
Plaintiff is advised:
1. that a Motion to Dismiss has been filed by Defendant Humphrey;
2. that he has the right to oppose the granting of that motion; and,
3. if he fails to oppose the motion, his claims may be DISMISSED.
The Plaintiff is further advised that, under the procedures and policies of this court, motions to dismiss are normally decided on briefs. That is, the Court considers the pleadings and briefs filed by the parties in deciding whether dismissal is appropriate under the law. Failure of the Plaintiff to respond, in writing, to the Motion to Dismiss may result in the granting of the motion, without a hearing or any further proceedings.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff is ORDERED AND DIRECTED to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 6, 2012. Thereafter, the Court will consider the motion and any opposition to the same filed by the Plaintiff. If no response is submitted by Plaintiff, the Court will consider said motion to be uncontested.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
