OUTLAW v. STEPHENSON et al

Filing 23

ORDER of NOTIFICATION OF MOTION TO DISMISS. Ordered by US Mag Judge Stephen Hyles on 12/2/11. (lws)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
CHARLES OUTLAW, III,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
Ms. STEVENSON, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
__________________________________

CASE NO. 5:11-CV-325-CDL-MSH
42 U.S.C. § 1983

NOTIFICATION OF MOTION TO DISMISS
AND ORDER TO RESPOND
Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss and a brief in support of same. (ECF
No. 21.) The Court is required to adequately advise Plaintiff of the significance of
Defendant’s motion pursuant to Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822 (11th Cir. 1985)
(per curiam). Therefore, in an effort to afford Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se,
adequate notice and time to respond to Defendant’s motion, the following notice is given.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss and show why the
remaining claims in his Complaint should not be dismissed.
The law provides that the party against whom dismissal is sought must be given
ten (10) days notice of the dismissal rules. In addition, the party against whom a motion
to dismiss has been filed has the right to file a brief in opposition to the motion. If he
fails to file a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, a final judgment may be
rendered against him if otherwise appropriate under law.

1

FAILURE OF THE PLAINTIFF HEREIN TO RESPOND TO AND REBUT
THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS SET FORTH IN THE DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF MAY
RESULT IN SAID STATEMENTS BEING ACCEPTED AS UNCONTESTED
AND CORRECT. The court could grant judgment to the Defendants and there would
be no further proceedings. Accordingly, Plaintiff is NOTIFIED of his right to file a
Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in accordance with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Any such response should be filed WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21)
DAYS. Thereafter, the court will consider Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and any
opposition to same filed by Plaintiff and issue its ruling thereon.
SO ORDERED this 2nd Day of December, 2011.

S/ Stephen Hyles
.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2