Shaw v. Watson et al

Filing 35

ORDER re 34 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by Christopher Hoernis, Thomas Trice, Richard Watson, Cameron Reid, David Nichols, Lieutnant Messey. Plaintiff Shaw is proceeding pro se and he must therefore be notified of the consequences if he fails to adequately respond to the Defendants' motion. Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100, 102 (7th Cir. 1982). No notice is on file. Plaintiff Mario Martinez Shaw is hereby NOTIFIED that failure to properly respond to the Defendants' Motion might be fatal to his claim. See attached. ALSO, because the Plaintiff was not provided the aforementioned notice, the deadline for the Plaintiff to respond to the Defendants' Motion (Doc. 34) is hereby extended to June 1, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 4/30/15. (kos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARIO MARTINEZ SHAW,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RICHARD WATSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:14-cv-00685-JPG-PMF

NOTICE AND ORDER
FRAZIER, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust
Administrative Remedies (Doc. 34). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), the
motion is being treated as a motion for summary judgment. However, because Plaintiff Shaw is
proceeding pro se, he must be notified of the consequences if he fails to adequately respond to
the motion. Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 247 (7th Cir. 1996); Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d
100, 102 (7th Cir. 1982). No notice is on file.
Plaintiff Mario Martinez Shaw is hereby NOTIFIED that failure to properly
respond to the Defendants’ Motion might be fatal to his claim. Any fact asserted in the
materials submitted with a motion for summary judgment will be accepted by the Court as being
true unless plaintiff raises a valid objection that a fact is not supported by admissible evidence,
submits his own affidavits or other documents controverting the factual assertions, or otherwise
demonstrates that a material fact is genuinely disputed. Any assertion that a fact is genuinely
disputed must be supported by citation to particular parts of materials in the record. Affidavits

1

and declarations must be made on personal knowledge. A copy of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure is attached to this Order. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to review that rule.
IT IS ORDERED that the deadline for the Plaintiff to respond to the Defendants’ Motion
is hereby extended to June 1, 2015. Plaintiff may file documents, affidavits, and other materials
in response to the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 30, 2015_.
s/ Philip M. Frazier
PHILIP M. FRAZIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2