Danielson v. Curtis et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying without prejudice 6 , 7 , 8 & 9 Motions to Dismiss; Defts shall have until 5/9/2014, to either file their Answers to the Complaint or file Motions to Dismiss that comply with the requirements of the Local Rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 4/23/14. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(ejb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
BRYSON CITY DIVISION
2:14cv8
JENNIFER C. DANIELSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MARY RUTH CURTIS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

Pending before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss [# 6, # 7, # 8, # 9].
Plaintiff brought this action asserting employment discriminations claims against
Defendants. Defendants then all moved to dismiss the Complaint. Both Plaintiff
and Defendants are proceeding in this case pro se. Pursuant to the Local Rules of
this Court, a party must include both a motion and a supporting legal brief. LCvR
7.1(C). None of the Defendants filed briefs contemporaneously with their Motions
to Dismiss. Despite proceeding pro se in this case, Defendants must still comply
with both this Court’s Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Collins v. Volz, Civil No. 1:12cv45, 2012 WL 2562500 (W.D.N.C. Jun. 29, 2012)
(Reidinger, J.). Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the motions
[# 6, # 7, # 8, # 9]. Defendants shall have until May 9, 2014, to either file their
-1-

Answers to the Complaint or file Motions to Dismiss that comply with the
requirements of the Local Rules. The Court also INSTRUCTS Defendants that
any Motion to Dismiss must set forth legal authority supporting the legal basis for
the dismissal of any of the claims asserted in the Complaint.
Signed: April 23, 2014

-2-