EDWARDS v. JONES

Docket 7:25-cv-00084

Filed
2025-07-01
Terminated
Not recorded
Case type
cv

Outcome

No sourced outcome is recorded. A termination date alone does not establish who prevailed.

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION JAMES BERNARD EDWARDS, : : Petitioner, : : v. : Case No. 7:25-cv-84-WLS-ALS : Warden DESHAWN JONES, : : Respondent. : ________________________________ NOTIFICATION OF MOTION TO DISMISS On February 9, 2026, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) 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. THE FAILURE OF PETITIONER 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 any desired response WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS of the date of this Order. Respondent may file any desired reply within fourteen (14) days of Petitioner’s response. Thereafter, the Court will consider Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) and any opposition to the same filed by Petitioner. SO ORDERED, this 10th day of February, 2026. s/ ALFREDA L. SHEPPARD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.