Brown v. Wagner

Filing 7

ORDER TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF - Plaintiff shall file his memorandum in opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss not later than 10/9/2006. Signed by Judge Michael R Merz on 9/14/06. (dp1 )

Download PDF
Brown v. Wagner Doc. 7 Case 3:06-cv-00273-TMR-MRM Document 7 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. DANIEL L. BROWN, Plaintiff, -vs: : : : JUDGE A. J. WAGNER, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MONTGOMERY : COUNTY, OHIO : Defendant. District Judge Thomas M. Rose Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz Case No. 3:05-CV-190 ORDER TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF UPON FILING OF MOTION TO DISMISS OR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT You are hereby notified that the Defendant has filed with the Court on September 14, 2006, a motion to dismiss your claim in this case or for summary judgment on those claims. You should receive a copy of the motion directly from the Defendants. Under the rules of this Court (S.D. Ohio L.R. 7.2) you are allowed twenty-one days from the date of service (September 14, 2006) to file a response to this motion, plus an extra three days if the motion was served on you by mail. Your response must be filed with the Court not later than October 9, 2006. Under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56, a party faced with a motion for summary judgment cannot rely merely on the claims he or she has made in the Complaint, but must respond with evidence which shows that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial in the case. The evidence must be of the same quality as would be admissible at trial in the case. September 14, 2006. Michael R. Merz UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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?