Wilkie v. United States

W.D. North Carolina

Wilkie v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 13, 2020

Docket1:19-cv-00321

StatusUnknown

This text of Wilkie v. United States (Wilkie v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilkie v. United States, (W.D.N.C. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:19-cv-321-MOC-WCM

ROBERT V. WILKIE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) (THE HONORABLE MARTIN ) REIDINGER, IN HIS OFFICIAL ) CAPACITY), ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion following the filing of a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, by Defendant United States of America, (Doc. No. 8), on January 10, 2020. In accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 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.1 The Court also advises Plaintiff that failure to respond may result in Defendant being granted the

1 The Fourth Circuit did not hold in Roseboro that such notice is required for motions to dismiss. Rather, the Fourth Circuit’s discussion in Roseboro regarding notice was directed to summary judgment motions. See Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975) (“We agree with the plaintiff, however, that there is another side to the coin which requires that the plaintiff be advised of his right to file counter-affidavits or other responsive material and alerted to the fact that his failure to so respond might result in the entry of summary judgment against him.”); see also Norman v. Taylor, 25 F.3d 1259, 1261 (4th Cir. 1994) (“In Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), this circuit held that pro se plaintiffs must be advised that their failure to file responsive material when a defendant moves for summary judgment may well result in entry of summary judgment against them.”). Nevertheless, courts routinely issue Roseboro notices for motions to dismiss, and the Court does so here.

1 relief Defendant seeks. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff shall respond to the pending Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 8), within 14 days of service of this Order. Failure to file a timely response will likely lead to dismissal of the claims against Defendant.

January 13, 2020

evrnna Max O. Cogburn i & United States District Judge Felgen

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:19-cv-321-MOC-WCM

ROBERT V. WILKIE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) (THE HONORABLE MARTIN ) REIDINGER, IN HIS OFFICIAL ) CAPACITY), ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion following the filing of a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, by Defendant United States of America, (Doc. No. 8), on January 10, 2020. In accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 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.1 The Court also advises Plaintiff that failure to respond may result in Defendant being granted the

1 The Fourth Circuit did not hold in Roseboro that such notice is required for motions to dismiss. Rather, the Fourth Circuit’s discussion in Roseboro regarding notice was directed to summary judgment motions. See Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975) (“We agree with the plaintiff, however, that there is another side to the coin which requires that the plaintiff be advised of his right to file counter-affidavits or other responsive material and alerted to the fact that his failure to so respond might result in the entry of summary judgment against him.”); see also Norman v. Taylor, 25 F.3d 1259, 1261 (4th Cir. 1994) (“In Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), this circuit held that pro se plaintiffs must be advised that their failure to file responsive material when a defendant moves for summary judgment may well result in entry of summary judgment against them.”). Nevertheless, courts routinely issue Roseboro notices for motions to dismiss, and the Court does so here.

1 relief Defendant seeks. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff shall respond to the pending Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 8), within 14 days of service of this Order. Failure to file a timely response will likely lead to dismissal of the claims against Defendant.

January 13, 2020

evrnna Max O. Cogburn i & United States District Judge Felgen

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wilkie v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkie-v-united-states-ncwd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack