Ward v. Oconee County Detention Center et al
ORDER TO RESPOND to 25 MOTION to Dismiss. Ordered by U.S. Mag Judge Charles H Weigle on 5/9/2011. (mgb) ***
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MICHAEL TERRANCE WARD,
SCOTT BERRY, et al.,
NO. 3:10-CV-78 (CAR)
Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. §1983
Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendants. Doc. 25. 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 the Defendant;
(2) that he has the right to oppose the granting of that motion; and,
(3) that 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 Defendants’ 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
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss ON OR BEFORE MAY 31, 2011. 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, this 9th day of May, 2011.
s/ Charles H. Weigle
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?