The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge:
Wednesday, 23 May, 2012 10:22:56 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (d/e 9). For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.
On February 29, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (d/e 9) with an accompanying memorandum of law (d/e 10). The Motion to Dismiss contains proof of service to stating the Motion was mailed to Plaintiff on February 29, 2012. Plaintiff's written response to the Motion to Dismiss was due on or before March 19, 2012.
As of this date, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Local Rule 7.1(B)(2) directs that a party opposing a motion must file a response to any motion, other than motion for summary judgment, within 14 days of receipt of the motion. As stated, on March 19, 2012, Plaintiff's response time to the Motion to Dismiss lapsed. The Court, by an April 5, 2012 docket entry, extended the response time to April 23, 2012, and advised that if no response was filed, the Court would presume that Plaintiff did not object to the Motion and that the Motion may be ruled upon without further notice.
As of this date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 7.1(B)(2). THEREFORE, Defendant's Motion (d/e 9)is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH United States District Judge
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...