Doyle v. McConagha et al

Filing 47

ORDER TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF - Plaintiff is required to respond to the Amended Motion to Dismiss not later than 4/23/2007. Signed by Judge Michael R Merz on 4/2/07. (dp1 )

Download PDF
Doyle v. McConagha et al Doc. 47 Case 3:07-cv-00003-TMR-MRM Document 47 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON WAYNE DOYLE, Plaintiff, -vs: CLARK COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY, et al., Defendants. : Case No. 3:07-cv-003 District Judge Thomas M. Rose Chief Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz ORDER TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF Plaintiff is hereby notified that Defendants have filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on various grounds (Doc. No. 46). Plaintiff is required to respond to this Motion not later than April 23, 2007. The Amended Motion to Dismiss was made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) whose purpose is to allow a defendant to test whether, as a matter of law, the plaintiff is entitled to legal relief even if everything alleged in the complaint is true. Mayer v. Mylod, 988 F.2d 635, 638 (6th Cir. 1993), citing Nishiyama v. Dickson County, Tennessee, 814 F.2d 277, 279 (6th Cir. 1987). Put another way, "The purpose of a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the formal sufficiency of the statement of the claim for relief; it is not a procedure for resolving a contest about the facts or merits of the case." Wright & Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Civil 2d 1356 at 294 (1990). In other words, the purpose of the Motion is not to test Plaintiff's evidence or proof of his claims. Instead, a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) essentially claims that, even if everything a plaintiff says in his Complaint is true, he is still not entitled to relief. Plaintiff should prepare his response with this standard in mind. March 31, 2007. s/ Michael R. Merz Chief United States Magistrate Judge 1

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?