Rufus v. Chapman et al
Filing
75
ORDER for Response to 74 MOTION to Dismiss for Mootness filed by Joseph I. Chapman. Ordered by U.S. Mag Judge Charles H Weigle on 5/17/2012. (mgb) ***
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
JONATHAN CHAPMAN,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
NO. 3:11-CV-74 (CAR)
Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. ยง1983
Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Joseph Chapman. Doc. 74.
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.
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 JUNE 11, 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, this 17th day of May, 2012.
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?