JACKSON v. SAMPSON

M.D. Georgia

JACKSON v. SAMPSON

DecidedFebruary 25, 2025

Docket4:24-cv-00113

StatusUnknown

This text of JACKSON v. SAMPSON (JACKSON v. SAMPSON) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

JACKSON v. SAMPSON, (M.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION

MALCOLM J. JACKSON, : : Petitioner, : : v. : Case No. 4:24-cv-113-CDL-AGH : Warden GREGORY SAMPSON, : : Respondent. : ________________________________ :

NOTIFICATION OF MOTION TO DISMISS

On February 25, 2025, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) the above-styled petition. The Court is required to adequately advise Petitioner of the significance of Respondent’s motion. See Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822, 825 (11th Cir. 1985). To afford Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, adequate notice and time to respond to Respondent’s motion, the following notice is given. Under the procedures and policies of this Court, motions to dismiss are normally decided on briefs. The Court considers the pleadings and the petition in deciding whether dismissal is appropriate. The parties may submit their argument to this Court by filing briefs in support of or briefs in opposition to said motions. The law provides that the party against whom dismissal is sought must be given ten (10) days-notice of the dismissal rules. In addition, the party upon whom a motion to dismiss has been filed has the right to file a brief in opposition to a motion to dismiss. If he fails to file a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, a final judgment may be rendered against him if otherwise appropriate under law. IF PETITIONER FAILS TO RESPOND TO AND REBUT THE ARGUMENTS IN RESPONDENT’S BRIEF MAY RESULT IN SAID STATEMENTS BEING ACCEPTED AS UNCONTESTED AND CORRECT.

The Court could grant judgment to Respondent and there would be no trial or further proceedings. Accordingly, Petitioner is NOTIFIED of his right to file a response to Respondent’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner should file such response WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Order. Thereafter, the Court will consider Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) and any opposition to the same filed by Petitioner and issue its ruling thereon.

SO ORDERED, this 25th day of February, 2025. s/ Amelia G. Helmick UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION

MALCOLM J. JACKSON, : : Petitioner, : : v. : Case No. 4:24-cv-113-CDL-AGH : Warden GREGORY SAMPSON, : : Respondent. : ________________________________ :

NOTIFICATION OF MOTION TO DISMISS

On February 25, 2025, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) the above-styled petition. The Court is required to adequately advise Petitioner of the significance of Respondent’s motion. See Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822, 825 (11th Cir. 1985). To afford Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, adequate notice and time to respond to Respondent’s motion, the following notice is given. Under the procedures and policies of this Court, motions to dismiss are normally decided on briefs. The Court considers the pleadings and the petition in deciding whether dismissal is appropriate. The parties may submit their argument to this Court by filing briefs in support of or briefs in opposition to said motions. The law provides that the party against whom dismissal is sought must be given ten (10) days-notice of the dismissal rules. In addition, the party upon whom a motion to dismiss has been filed has the right to file a brief in opposition to a motion to dismiss. If he fails to file a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, a final judgment may be rendered against him if otherwise appropriate under law. IF PETITIONER FAILS TO RESPOND TO AND REBUT THE ARGUMENTS IN RESPONDENT’S BRIEF MAY RESULT IN SAID STATEMENTS BEING ACCEPTED AS UNCONTESTED AND CORRECT.

The Court could grant judgment to Respondent and there would be no trial or further proceedings. Accordingly, Petitioner is NOTIFIED of his right to file a response to Respondent’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner should file such response WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this Order. Thereafter, the Court will consider Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) and any opposition to the same filed by Petitioner and issue its ruling thereon.

SO ORDERED, this 25th day of February, 2025. s/ Amelia G. Helmick UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

JACKSON v. SAMPSON, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-sampson-gamd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack