Green v. Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles

Filing 26

ORDER for Response to Motion re: 25 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint filed by Robert E. Keller, Milton E. Nix, Jr., Garland R. Hunt, James E Donald, Gale L Buckner, Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. Ordered by U.S. Mag Judge Claude W. Hicks, Jr. on 11/3/2009. (mgb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION PHILIP LEE GREEN, Plaintiff VS. GA BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES, et al., NO. 5:09-CV-197 (HL) PROCEEDINGS UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983 BEFORE THE U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendants ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Gale L Buckner, Robert E. Keller, Milton E. Nix, Jr, Garland R. Hunt, and James E Donald have filed a motion seeking dismissal of the abovecaptioned 1983 action. Tab #25. Since plaintiff Phillip Lee Green is proceeding pro se, the court deems it appropriate and necessary to advise him of his obligation to respond to this motion and of the consequences which he may suffer if he fails to do so. Plaintiff is advised: (1) that a MOTION TO DISMISS has been filed herein on behalf of the defendants; (2) that he has the right to oppose the granting of said motion; and, (3) that if he fails to oppose said motion, his complaint may be DISMISSED. Plaintiff Green is further advised that under the procedures and policies of this court, MOTIONS TO DISMISS are normally decided on briefs. The court considers the pleadings and briefs filed by the parties in deciding whether DISMISSAL is appropriate under the law. FAILURE OF THE PLAINTIFF HEREIN TO RESPOND TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS MAY RESULT IN THE GRANTING OF SAID MOTION. Upon the recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district judge could then grant the motion to dismiss. There would be no trial or any further proceedings ! Accordingly, plaintiff Green is ORDERED AND DIRECTED to file a response to said MOTION TO DISMISS ON OR BEFORE FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2009. Thereafter, the court will consider the motion and any opposition to the same filed by the plaintiff. If no response is submitted by plaintiff Green, the court will consider said motion to be uncontested. The Clerk is directed to serve plaintiff Green at the last address provided by him. SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of NOVEMBER, 2009. s/ Claude W. Hicks, Jr. CLAUDE W. HICKS, JR. 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?