Hartman v. City of Roswell et al
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE OR TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea. Response due by 12/8/2017. (cbf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DAVID R. HARTMAN,
THE CITY OF ROSWELL,
and MIGUEL ANGEL LOPEZ,
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE ANSWER OR SHOW CAUSE IN
WRITING WHY COURT SHOULD NOT DEEM DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s
claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), filed on November 14, 2017. [Doc.
5]. Under the Court’s local rules, Plaintiff was required to submit a response on or before
November 29, 2017. See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.4(a). To date, Plaintiff has not responded to
Defendants’ motion, informed the Court of his non opposition to the relief requested, or
otherwise placed the Court on notice of an agreed-on extension. Further, Local Rule 7.1(b)
provides that a party’s failure to respond “within the time prescribed for doing so constitutes
consent to grant the motion.” After considering the case’s posture and before taking the measure
of deeming Defendants’ motion unopposed, the Court will order Plaintiff to either file a response
or show cause in writing why the Court should not deem Plaintiff’s failure to respond as consent
to grant the motion to dismiss.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that on or before Friday, December 8, 2017,
Plaintiff shall either file a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
or show cause in writing why the Court should not deem Plaintiff’s failure consent to grant
KEVIN R. SWEAZEA
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?