Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:15-CV-38 (GROH)
04-13-2015
ROBERT A. GORTH, Plaintiff, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, Defendant.
ROSEBORO NOTICE
On April 9, 2015, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss [ECF 7] the pro se plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court notes that the plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The Court has a duty to advise the plaintiff of his right to file responsive material, and to alert him to the fact that his failure to so respond might result in the entry of an order of dismissal against him. Davis v. Zahradrich, 600 F.2d 458, 460 (4th Cir. 1979); Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975). The plaintiff is so advised.
In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded material factual allegations. Advanced Health-Care Servs., Inc. v. Radford Cmty. Hosp., 910 F.2d 139, 143 (4th Cir. 1990). However, the complaint must state a "'plausible claim for relief.'" Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In determining whether a claim for relief is plausible, a court must examine the factual allegations presented to determine if "they are sufficient 'to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that, within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order, the plaintiff shall file any opposition explaining why his case should not be dismissed. The plaintiff is further advised that he must serve the defendants with any response he files.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit copies of this order to all counsel of record and pro se parties.
DATED: April 13, 2015
/s/_________
GINA M. GROH
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE