Robinson et al v. The State of Georgia et al

Filing 132

ORDER directing the Plaintiffs to file any objections to the Defendants' 130 MOTION to Dismiss, or to otherwise inform the court of their decision not to object within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Graham on 1/13/2015. (ca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION

SCELIA ROBINSON and
LACK LYDE,
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV213-066

V.

THE STATE OF GEORGIA; AMITY
HOUSE, et a!,
Defendants
ORDER
Plaintiffs, proceeding prose, filed this complaint on May 6, 2013. Defendants Carrie
Murray Nellis and Gil Nellis have moved for a dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim.
The Court is reluctant to rule on said motion without receiving a response from the
Plaintiffs or insuring that Plaintiffs are advised of the potential ramifications caused by their
failure to respond. Once such a motion is filed, the opponent should be afforded a
reasonable opportunity to respond to or oppose such a motion. This Court must consider
that the Plaintiffs in this case are pro so litigants. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519, 520
(1972). When a defendant or defendants file a motion to dismiss, the court must construe
the complaint liberally in favor of plaintiffs, taking all facts alleged by the plaintiffs as true,
even if doubtful in fact. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007).
The granting of a motion to dismiss without affording the plaintiffs either notice or
any opportunity to be heard is disfavored. Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321, 133637 (11th Cir. 2011). A local rule, such as Local Rule 7.5 of this court,' should not in any
Local Rule 7.5 states:
Unless. . . the assigned judge prescribes otherwise, each party opposing
a motion shall serve and file a response within fourteen (14) days of
service of the motion, except that in cases of motions for summary
judgment the time shall be twenty-one (21) days after service of the
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

way serve as a basis for dismissing a pro se complaint where, as here, there is nothing to
indicate plaintiffs ever were made aware of it prior to dismissal. Pierce v. City of Miami,
176 F. App'x 12, 14 (11th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to file any objections to said
Defendants' motion for a dismissal, or to otherwise inform the court of their decision not
to object to said Defendants' motion within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order.
Tazoe, 631 F.3d at 1336 (advising that a court can not dismiss an action without employing
a fair procedure). Should Plaintiffs not timely respond to said Defendants' motion to
dismiss, the Court will determine that there is no opposition to the motion. See Local Rule
7.5. In order to assure that Plaintiffs' response is made with fair notice of the requirements
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding motions to dismiss, generally, and
motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Clerk
of Court is hereby instructed to attach a copy of Rule 41, FED. R. Civ. P., as well as Rule
12, FED. R. Civ. P., to the copy of this Order that is served on the Plaintiffs.

SO ORDERED, this / _-'

day of January, 2015.

(j

J1ES E. GRAII'AM
ITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

motion. Failure to respond shall indicate that there is no opposition to a
motion. (emphasis added).

AO 72A
(Rev. /82)