STAFFORD v. MURRAY, 5:14-cv-186-FDW. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20150826c71
Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 25, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 25, 2015
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY , Chief District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte regarding the filing of a Motion to Dismiss by Defendant David Guinn. (Doc. No. 35). 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. 1 The Court also advises Plaintiff that failure to respond may result in Defendant being granted the relief Defendant seeks—that is
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY , Chief District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte regarding the filing of a Motion to Dismiss by Defendant David Guinn. (Doc. No. 35). 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. 1 The Court also advises Plaintiff that failure to respond may result in Defendant being granted the relief Defendant seeks—that is,..
More
ORDER
FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte regarding the filing of a Motion to Dismiss by Defendant David Guinn. (Doc. No. 35).
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.1 The Court also advises Plaintiff that failure to respond may result in Defendant being granted the relief Defendant seeks—that is, the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff shall respond to the pending Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 35), within 14 days of entry of this Order. Failure to file a timely response will likely lead to the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff by certified U.S. mail.
FootNotes
1. The Fourth Circuit did not hold in Roseboro that such notice is required for motions to dismiss. Rather, the Fourth Circuit's discussion in Roseboro regarding notice was directed to summary judgment motions. See Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975) ("We agree with the plaintiff, however, that there is another side to the coin which requires that the plaintiff be advised of his right to file counter-affidavits or other responsive material and alerted to the fact that his failure to so respond might result in the entry of summary judgment against him."); see also Norman v. Taylor, 25 F.3d 1259, 1261 (4th Cir. 1994) ("In Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), this circuit held that pro se plaintiffs must be advised that their failure to file responsive material when a defendant moves for summary judgment may well result in entry of summary judgment against them."). Nevertheless, courts routinely issue Roseboro notices for motions to dismiss, and the Court does so here.
Source: Leagle
