Harwell v. Campbell

• Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
• Decided: June 18, 2019
• Docket: 5:19-cv-00027
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-027-KDB-DCK BRIAN RICHARD HARWELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) IREDELL COUNTY, TRAVELERS ) CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF ) AMERICA, DARREN EUGENE CAMPBELL, ) DERRICK HILMAN STUTTS, MATTHEW ) BRADEN TALBERT, DANIEL SHANE ) STIKELEATHER, and ) MIKAWATO REED RED ARROW, ) ) Defendants. ) )

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT sua sponte regarding the “Motion To Dismiss Filed On Behalf Of Defendant Red Arrow” (Document No. 11) on May 22, 2019. The undersigned notes that Plaintiff’s response to the pending motion to dismiss was due by June 5, 2019. See Local Rule 7.1(e). In accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison 582 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Court advises Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, that he has a right to respond to Defendant’s motion. The Court also notes that failure to respond may result in Defendant being granted the relief sought, that is, the dismissal of the Complaint. Plaintiff is respectfully advised that he must abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court, including case deadlines. In this instance, the undersigned will allow pro se Plaintiff an extension of time to file a response. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a response to the pending “Motion To Dismiss Filed On Behalf Of Defendant Red Arrow” (Document No. 11) on or before July 2, 2019. Failure to file a timely and persuasive response may lead to the dismissal Plaintiff's claims. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order by certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested. SO ORDERED.

Signed: June 17, 2019 DCm David C. Keesler ee United States Magistrate Judge vet