Wilson v. Pope

Filing 44

ORDER for Response to 43 MOTION to Dismiss Petition for Habeas Corpus filed by Gene Pope. Ordered by U.S. Mag Judge Charles H Weigle on 9/2/11. (mgb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DONALD PAUL WILSON,

:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
VS.
:
:
GENE POPE,
:
:
Respondent.
:
______________________________________ :

NO. 5:11-CV-176 (CAR)

Proceedings Under 28 U.S.C. §2254
Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER
Respondent herein has filed a motion seeking dismissal of the above-captioned habeas
corpus petition asserting the petitioner has not exhausted the state remedies available to him as
required by Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982). Doc. 43. That
is, respondent contends that the petitioner has failed to properly submit one or more grounds for
relief to the state courts for review prior to filing this federal habeas corpus action or, if he has
submitted his claims, no decision has yet been made in the state courts. Since the petitioner is
proceeding pro se, the court deems it appropriate and necessary to advise him of his obligation to
respond to said motion and of the consequences which he may suffer if he fails to file a proper
response thereto.
Petitioner is advised:
(1) that a MOTION TO DISMISS has been filed herein by the respondent;
(2) that he has the right to oppose the granting of said motion; and,
(3) that if he fails to oppose said motion, his petition may be DISMISSED.
The petitioner is further advised that, under the procedures and policies of this court, motions
seeking dismissal 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 PETITIONER 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 grant the motion to dismiss. There would be no hearing or any further
proceedings.
Accordingly, the petitioner is ORDERED AND DIRECTED to file a response to said
MOTION TO DISMISS ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 26, 2011. Thereafter, the court will
consider the motion and any opposition to the same filed by the petitioner. If no response is
submitted by petitioner, the court will consider said motion to be uncontested.
SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of September, 2011.

s/Charles H. Weigle
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge