Fredrick v. Watson et al

Filing 5

ORDER re #4 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a response either opposing or indicating his lack of opposition within 14 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Benjamin W. Cheesbro on 11/17/2020. (Attachments: #1 Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, #2 Fed.R.Civ.P. 41) (ca)

Case 2:20-cv-00121-LGW-BWC Document 5 Filed 11/17/20 Page 1 of 2
FILED
John E. Triplett, Acting Clerk
United States District Court

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

By CAsbell at 3:40 pm, Nov 17, 2020

DANTE G. FREDRICK,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:20-cv-121

v.
SGT. ERIC WATSON; MAJOR FNU
MASTROIANNI; and SHERIFF JAMES K.
PROCTOR,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 4. A motion to
dismiss is dispositive in nature, meaning that granting a motion to dismiss could result in the
dismissal of individual claims or an entire action. Consequently, the Court is reluctant to rule on
the Motion to Dismiss without providing Plaintiff an opportunity to respond or advising Plaintiff
of the consequences for failing to respond. 1
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a response either opposing or
indicating his lack of opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss within 14 days of the date of
this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file a timely response, the Court will presume Plaintiff does
not oppose the Motion and may dismiss individual claims or the entire action. See Local R.
7.5 (“Failure to respond . . . shall indicate that there is no opposition to a motion.”).

1

Granting a motion to dismiss without affording a plaintiff either notice or an opportunity to be
heard is disfavored. Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321, 1336–37 (11th Cir. 2011); see also Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 329–30 (1989) (A notice of a motion to dismiss “alert[s plaintiff] to the legal
theory underlying the defendant’s challenge” and enables him to meaningfully respond “by opposing the
motion to dismiss on legal grounds or by clarifying his factual allegations so as to conform with the
requirements of a valid legal cause of action.”).

Case 2:20-cv-00121-LGW-BWC Document 5 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 2

To ensure Plaintiff’s response is made with fair notice of the requirements of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure regarding motions to dismiss generally, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk
of Court to provide a copy of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 41 when serving this
Order upon Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of November, 2020.

____________________________________
BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2