Jones v. COMSYS IT Partners, Inc et al

Filing 102

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 93 Motion to Stay; granting 94 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 85 MOTION to Dismiss, 87 MOTION for Joinder, 88 MOTION to Dismiss (Responses due by 9/2/2011). Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 8/12/2011. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(tmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:10CV72-MOC-DSC
JENNIFER MARIE JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMSYS IT PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on “Defendant COMSYS’ Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint,” Doc.85, filed June 27, 2011, “Defendants Michael
Muscatell, Karla Meador, Terry Bell, Michael Barker, and Keith Markham’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint,” Doc. 88, filed June 27, 2011, “Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay
Proceedings,” Doc. 93, filed July 14, 2011, and “Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Answer
Pleadings and Motions Filed June 27, 2011,” Doc. 94 filed on July 14, 2011, and the parties’
associated briefs and exhibits, Docs. 86, 87, 89, 99, 100, and 101.
These matters were referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1), and are now ripe for consideration.
For the reasons stated in Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings,
Doc. 100, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings.
In accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Court advises
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, that she has a right to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,
Docs. 85 and 88. Pursuant to that right and Plaintiff’s consented to Motion for Extension of Time,
the Court grants Plantiff’s Motion for Extension of Time.

The Court advises Plaintiff that failure to respond may result in Defendant being granted the
relief it seeks, that is, the DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

“Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings,” Doc. 93, filed July 14, 2011, is DENIED.

2.

“Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Pleadings and Motions Filed

June 27, 2011,” Doc. 94 filed on July 14, 2011 is GRANTED. Plaintiff is allowed until September
2, 2011 to respond to “Defendant COMSYS’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint,” Doc.85, filed June 27, 2011, and “Defendants Michael Muscatell, Karla Meador, Terry
Bell, Michael Barker, and Keith Markham’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint,” Doc. 88, filed June 27, 2011.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: August 12, 2011