Hoffman v. Family Dollars Stores, Inc.

Filing 14

NOTICE that Plaintiff must file his Amended Complaint and reasons for delay within one-week, on or before January 29, 2015. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 1/21/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:14-cv-00664-FDW-DCK
ARTHEA HOFFMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NOTICE

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte following Plaintiff’s failure to file an
Amended Complaint per the Court’s order on January 12, 2015 (Doc. No. 13). In that order, the
Court construed Plaintiff’s filing of an “Addendum” (Doc. No. 8) as a Motion for an Amended
Complaint, and granted that Motion, requiring Plaintiff to file a complete and integrated
complaint by January 19, 2015. As of today, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint.
Defense has already filed two Motions to Dismiss this case (Docs. Nos. 3, 11). As such,
there has been no joinder of the issues. Thus, the PSAP Opt In cannot move forward. Indeed,
the entire case cannot move forward until Plaintiff files his Amended Complaint.
In accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Court advises
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, that he has a right to file an Amended Complaint,
incorporating the allegations of his original complaint and his “Addendum” (Doc. No. 8) into

one complete document. Plaintiff must now also present to the Court the reasons for his failure
to file an Amended Complaint within the original one-week deadline. 1
Plaintiff must file his Amended Complaint and reasons for delay within one-week, on or
before January 29, 2015. The Court strongly advises Plaintiff that his failure to respond will
result in dismissal of the entire case.
The Clerk is respectfully directed to send a copy of this Notice to Plaintiff at 5851
Reddman Road, Apt. 13, Charlotte, NC 28212, and to counsel for the Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: January 21, 2015

1

The specific language of Roseboro addressed the responsive burden for a pro se party in the context of a motion for
summary judgment, but the Court, out of an abundance of caution, has issued this notice.