Hardin v. Kateh et al
Filing
38
ORDER STAYING CASE pending disposition of Defendant's renewed Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Frank D. Whitney on 4/15/2011. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (tmg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:10-cv-260-FDW-DSC
SHIRLEY R. HARDIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FRANCIS KATEH, and ANSON COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte regarding the status of this case. On
December 15, 2010, Defendant moved to dismiss pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction (Doc. No. 14). Because this motion was made subsequent to the parties’ Rule
26(f) initial attorneys’ conference, the Court stayed the deadlines of the case pending disposition of
Defendant’s motion. (Doc. No. 20). In the course of responding to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff
raised new claims not contained in her Complaint and moved to dismissed a number of claims. The
Court converted Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition to Defendant’s motion into an Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 27), denied as moot Defendant’s motion (Doc. No. 31), and lifted the stay in
the case after issuing new deadlines (Doc. No. 32). Defendant now renews its Motion to Dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). (Doc. No. 33).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to § 3(c)(i) of this Court’s Standing Order
Governing Civil Case Management (3:07-mc-47, Doc. No. 2-4), all deadlines and proceedings in
this case are hereby STAYED pending disposition of Defendant’s renewed Motion to Dismiss.
The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff at her address of record, 177
Anson County High School Road, Pinebluff Apartment #205, Wadesboro, NC 28170, and to counsel
for Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 15, 2011
2
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?