Opinion
Case No. 6:16-cv-1379-Orl-37DCI
07-14-2017
HOWARD PORTER, Plaintiff, v. NICOLE SANCHEZ, Defendant.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On August 1, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Howard Porter filed a three-count complaint against eleven defendants asserting claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (See Doc. 1.) After whittling down the parties in this action (see Docs. 58, 71), only Defendant Nicole Sanchez ("Sanchez") remains.
On June 5, 2017, Sanchez moved for summary judgment on the claims asserted against her. (Doc. 82 ("MSJ").) Pursuant to the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order ("CMSO"), Plaintiff's response was due on or before Monday, July 10, 2017. (See Doc. 59, p. 9 (allotting thirty days to respond to summary judgment motions); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C), (d) (extending deadlines that fall on a weekend or holiday to the next business day and adding three additional days if a motion is served by mail).) To date, Plaintiff has not responded.
The CMSO also states that the Court: (1) takes motions for summary judgment under advisement forty-five days from the date they are served, unless extended by Court order; and (2) does not hold hearings on such motions as a matter of course. (Doc. 59, pp. 9-10.) Due to Plaintiff's pro se status, in an abundance of caution, the Court will provide Plaintiff additional time to respond. If a response is filed, Sanchez will be provided fourteen days from the date of filing to submit a reply. (Doc. 59, p. 9 (allotting fourteen days for a moving party to file a reply to an MSJ).)
Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to file a responsive memorandum and any materials demonstrating the existence of genuine issues of material fact on or before Wednesday, July 26, 2017; otherwise the Court will consider the motion unopposed and, if appropriate, enter summary judgment against Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). If Plaintiff files a response, Sanchez may file a reply within fourteen days of receipt. The parties are advised that the Court will take the pending motion under advisement as of Wednesday, August 9, 2017.
See Milburn v. United States, 734 F.2d 762, 765 (11th Cir. 1984) (requiring that a trial court notify the parties that a motion for summary judgment will be taken under advisement as of a certain day); see also May v. Hetzel, 630 F. App'x 994, 998 (11th Cir. 2015) (noting that Rule 56 still requires a court to give notice before issuing judgment).
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on July 14, 2017.
/s/_________
ROY B. DALTON JR.
United States District Judge Copies to:
Counsel of Record