Opinion
NO. 3:11-CV-74 (CAR)
05-17-2012
MICHAEL ALONZA RUFUS, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN CHAPMAN, Defendant.
Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. §1983
Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Joseph Chapman. Doc. 74. Since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court deems it appropriate and necessary to advise him of his obligation to respond and of the consequences which he may suffer if he fails to file a proper response.
Plaintiff is advised:
1. that a Motion to Dismiss has been filed by the Defendant;
2. that he has the right to oppose the granting of that motion; and,
3. if he fails to oppose the motion, his claims may be DISMISSED.
The Plaintiff is further advised that, under the procedures and policies of this court, motions to dismiss are normally decided on briefs. That is, the Court considers the pleadings and briefs filed by the parties in deciding whether dismissal is appropriate under the law. Failure of the Plaintiff to respond, in writing, to the Motion to Dismiss may result in the granting of the motion, without a hearing or any further proceedings.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff is ORDERED AND DIRECTED to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss ON OR BEFORE JUNE 11, 2012. Thereafter, the Court will consider the motion and any opposition to the same filed by the Plaintiff. If no response is submitted by Plaintiff, the Court will consider said motion to be uncontested.
___________
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge