PHILLIPS v. STATE FARM

IFNO TRH TEH UEN MIITDEDDL SET DATISETSR DICISTT ORFIC GTE COORUGRIAT VALDOSTA DIVISION ROGER PHILLIPS, : : Plaintiff, : CASE NO: v. : 7:25-cv-75–WLS : STATE FARM, : : Defendant. : ____________________________________ ORDER On June 18, 2025, Defendant State Farm filed Putative Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7). Pro se Plaintiff Roger Phillips has not filed a response to State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court typically provides notice to pro se plaintiffs about how they may respond to a motion to dismiss. Hence, in an effort to ensure and to afford Plaintiff adequate notice regarding a motion to dismiss, the Court issues the instant Order. See generally Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).

When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all facts set forth in a plaintiff’s complaint. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007); Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 959 (11th Cir. 2009). Although the complaint must contain factual allegations that “raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of” the plaintiff’s claims, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision . . . operates as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Under the procedures and policies of this Court, motions to dismiss are normally decided on briefs. Plaintiff may submit his argument to this Court by filing a brief, not exceeding 20 pages, in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4.

Furthermore, the Court’s resolution of a motion to dismiss could result in granting judgment, and there would be no trial or further proceedings as to the Defendant State Farm.

As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court shall permit Plaintiff an opportunity to file a DAYS of this Order or until Thursday, August 21, 2025. Thereafter, the Court will consider Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and any opposition to the same filed by Plaintiff and issue its ruling.

Plaintiff is noticed that if Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted, Plaintiff’s Complaint may be dismissed without further notice or proceeding. Plaintiff is further noticed that upon a timely written motion for a reasonable time to obtain counsel, the Court will consider the same before addressing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Otherwise, Plaintiff is entirely responsible for filing a timely response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

SO ORDERED, this 31st day of July 2025.

/s/W. Louis Sands W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT