Rammal v. Vera et al

Filing 10

ORDER re 6 MOTION to Dismiss. (Plaintiff's Response due by 8/22/2011.). Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 8/8/11. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(gpb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-189-MOC-DCK NOHA RAMMAL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CHRISTIE CANEDO, ) JESUS GUZMAN, JR., and ) YOLANDA M. VERA, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) ORDER THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT sua sponte regarding the filing of Defendant’s “Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint” (Document No. 6). 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 Defendant’s motion. The Court also advises Plaintiff that failure to respond may result in Defendant being granted the relief it seeks, that is, the dismissal of the Complaint. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff may respond to the pending “Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint” (Document No. 6) on or before August 22, 2011. Failure to file a timely and persuasive response will likely lead to the dismissal of this lawsuit. Signed: August 8, 2011

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?