Pace v. Hurst Boiler Welding Co.

Full title: WILLIE PACE, Plaintiff, v. HURST BOILER WELDING CO., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division

Date published: Nov 17, 2010

Civil Action No. 7:10-CV-116 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Nov. 17, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 7:10-CV-116 (HL).

November 17, 2010

ORDER

HUGH LAWSON, District Judge

On November 17, 2010, Defendant, Hurst Boiler Welding Co., filed a motion seeking dismissal of this case. Since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court deems it appropriate and necessary to advise him of his obligations in responding to said Motion and of the consequences which he may suffer if he fails to file a proper response thereto.

Plaintiff is advised:

(1) that a Motion to Dismiss has been filed by Defendant;

(2) that he has the right to oppose the granting of said Motion; and,

(3) that if he fails to oppose said Motion, the complaint against Defendant may be dismissed.

Plaintiff is further advised that under the procedures and policies of this Court, motions to dismiss are normally decided on briefs. The Court considers the complaint and briefs filed by the parties in deciding whether dismissal is appropriate under the law.

Failure of Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to Dismiss may result in the granting of said Motion. There would be no trial or any further proceedings as to the Defendant seeking dismissal.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to file a response to said Motion to Dismiss no later than December 8, 2010. Thereafter, the Court will consider the Motion and any opposition to same filed by Plaintiff. If no response is submitted by Plaintiff, the Court will consider said Motion to be uncontested. The Clerk is directed to serve Plaintiff at the last address provided by him.

SO ORDERED, this the 17^th day of November, 2010.