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)

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