Ward v. Chapman
ORDER for Response to 9 MOTION to Dismiss Petition As Untimely filed by Tom Chapman. Ordered by U.S. Mag. Judge Charles H. Weigle on 3/22/12. (mgb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
TODD L. WARD,
TOM CHAPMAN, Warden,
NO. 5:12-CV-8 (CAR)
Proceedings Under 28 U.S.C. §2254
Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge
Respondent Warden Tom Chapman has filed a motion to dismiss the above-captioned
petition asserting that it is untimely under the one (1) year period of limitation set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d). Doc. 9. Since Petitioner Todd L. Ward 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.
Petitioner is advised:
(1) that a motion to dismiss this petition has been filed herein by the Respondent;
(2) that he has the right to oppose the granting of that 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
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 Petitioner
to respond, in writing, to the motion to dismiss may result in the granting of said motion, without
a hearing or any further proceedings.
Accordingly, the Petitioner is ORDERED AND DIRECTED to file a response to the
Respondent’s motion to dismiss ON OR BEFORE APRIL 16, 2012. 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 22nd day of March, 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?