Richard Jerry McLeod v. Catherine Smith

IFNO TRH TEH UEN MIITDEDDL SET DATISETSR DICISTT ORFIC GTE COORUGRIAT VALDOSTA DIVISION RICHARD JERRY McLEOD, : : Plaintiff, : v. : CASE NO: : 7:26-cv-05–WLS CATHERINE SMITH, , : : Defendants. : ____________________________________ ORDER On January 7, 2026, Defendants Chandler Giddes (“Giddes”) and Thomasville Humane Society (“THS” and together with Giddes, the “Moving Defendants”) filed a Notice of Removal of this case from the Superior Court of Brooks County to this Court (Doc. 1). On January 13, 2026, Giddes and THS filed a Special Appearance Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support thereof (Docs. 5 & 6). The Motion and Memorandum were originally filed January 7, 2026, in the state court proceeding.1 Pro se Plaintiff Richard Jerry McLeod has not filed a response to the 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 the Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum, 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 The documents were also refiled in this Court on January 7, 2026 (Docs. 3 & 4). However, because of 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).

In addition, the Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of the Complaint on the basis that Plaintiff failed to properly serve Giddes and THS.

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 the 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 against Plaintiff, and there would be no trial or further proceedings as to the Moving Defendants Giddes and THS.

As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court shall permit Plaintiff an opportunity to file a Response to Moving Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, if he so desires, within twenty-one (21) days of this Order or no later than Thursday, February 5, 2026. Thereafter, the Court will consider Moving Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and any opposition to the same filed by Plaintiff and issue its ruling.

Plaintiff is noticed that if Moving Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted, Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants Chandler Giddes and Thomasville Humane Society 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 Moving Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Otherwise, Plaintiff is entirely responsible for filing a timely response to Moving Defendant’s motion as set out herein.

SO ORDERED, this 15th day of January 2026.

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