Opinion
CIVIL NO. 1:01CV00889
March 8, 2002
ORDER
On September 21, 2001, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging that he was refused medical treatment by Defendant Kernodle Clinic. It is unclear whether Plaintiff is attempting to assert any claims against Defendant James P. Hooten, M.D. On October 23, 2001, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as on other alternative grounds. On October 24, 2001, the Clerk of this court advised the Plaintiff in writing of the filing of the motion by the Defendants, his right to reply, and the fact that his failure to respond could cause the court to dismiss the case. To date, the Plaintiff has not responded or contacted the court in any way. Local Rule 7.3(k) provides that a failure by a respondent to file a response to motion will ordinarily result in a motion being granted as uncontested. Because Plaintiff's complaint is deficient in numerous respects, and because Plaintiff has failed to file a response to Defendants' motion to dismiss, despite being advised by the court of his right to do so and the likely result of his failure to respond, the court will grant Defendants' motion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss [Doc. #4] pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.