LEE v. BANK OF AMERICA et al

Filing 5

ORDER for Response to Motion re: 4 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by BANK OF AMERICA. Plaintiff ordered to file a response not later than 5/8/2014. Ordered by U.S. District Judge HUGH LAWSON on 4/8/2014. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION

PATRICIA BENTON LEE,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 7:14-CV-46 (HL)
v.

BANK OF AMERICA, QUICKEN
LOANS, ALL PERSONS
UNKNOWN,CLAIMING ANY
LEGAL OREQUITABLE RIGHT,
TITLE,ESTATEL, LIEN, OR
INTEREST INTHE PROPERTY
DESCRIBED IN THECOMPLAINT
ADVERSE TOPLAINTIFF’S TITLE,
OR ANY CLOUDON PLAINTIFF’S
TITLE THERETO;AND DOES 1-20,
INCLUSIVE ANDTHE WORLD,
Defendant.

ORDER
Defendant Bank of America, N.A. filed a Motion to Dismiss in the above-styled
action on April 8, 2014, based on Plaintiff’s failure to provide a short, plain statement of
her claim and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court directs
Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the dictates of the
following notice:

The Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Accordingly, the Court deems it appropriate
and necessary to advise her of her right to respond to said Motion and of the
consequences that she may suffer if she fails to file a response thereto.
The Court advises Plaintiff that:
(1) a Motion to Dismiss has been filed herein by Defendant;
(2) Plaintiff has the right to oppose the granting of said Motion; and
(3) if Plaintiff fails to oppose said Motion, her Complaint may be dismissed.
The Court further advises Plaintiff that under the procedures and policies of this
Court, motions to dismiss typically are 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 to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, therefore,
may result in the granting of the Motion. There would be no trial or further proceedings.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff is ordered and directed to file a response to said Motion
to Dismiss BY NO LATER THAN MAY 8, 2014. Thereafter, the Court will consider the
Motion and any opposition filed by Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of April, 2014.

s/ Hugh Lawson_______________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE

aks