DAVIS v. U.S., CR 110-041. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20161222a79
Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2016
Summary: ORDER BRIAN K. EPPS , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner has failed to file a response to Respondent's motion to dismiss, and the Court is reluctant to rule on the motion without first hearing from Petitioner. (Doc. no. 7.) Under Loc. R. 7.5, failure to respond to a motion generally indicates that the motion is unopposed; nevertheless, the Court recognizes that Petitioner is acting pro se in this litigation and that Respondent's motion is dispositive in nature. Therefore, the Court ORDERS Pe
Summary: ORDER BRIAN K. EPPS , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner has failed to file a response to Respondent's motion to dismiss, and the Court is reluctant to rule on the motion without first hearing from Petitioner. (Doc. no. 7.) Under Loc. R. 7.5, failure to respond to a motion generally indicates that the motion is unopposed; nevertheless, the Court recognizes that Petitioner is acting pro se in this litigation and that Respondent's motion is dispositive in nature. Therefore, the Court ORDERS Pet..
More
ORDER
BRIAN K. EPPS, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner has failed to file a response to Respondent's motion to dismiss, and the Court is reluctant to rule on the motion without first hearing from Petitioner. (Doc. no. 7.) Under Loc. R. 7.5, failure to respond to a motion generally indicates that the motion is unopposed; nevertheless, the Court recognizes that Petitioner is acting pro se in this litigation and that Respondent's motion is dispositive in nature. Therefore, the Court ORDERS Petitioner to file a response to the motion to dismiss within fourteen days. Thereafter, the Court will rule on the motion, and if Petitioner still fails to respond, the Court will deem the motion unopposed. See Loc. R. 7.5. The Clerk is directed to notify the Court of the status of this case at the expiration of the fourteen days.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
