United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
TIPTON D. SHOLES, M.D., Plaintiff,
ANESTHESIA DEPARTMENT; AUGUSTA UNIVERSITY / MEDICAL COLLEGE GA; GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION, Medical College of GA; and UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GA - BOARD OF REGENTS, Defendants.
RANDAL HALL JUDGE
the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff. (Docs. 12, 14.)
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The first motion is
a request for an extension of time and, construing the motion
liberally, a request for a hearing to respond to
Defendants' motion to dismiss. (First Mot., Doc. 12.)
Plaintiff's second motion is interpreted liberally as a
motion for an extension of time, a motion for a more definite
statement, and a request to exceed the page limit in
responding to Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Second
Mot., Doc. 14.)
filed the first motion on June 26, 2019. (First Mot.)
Plaintiff failed to sign the motion and attach a certificate
of service as required by local rules. (See id.) The
same day, the Clerk mailed Plaintiff a Notice of Filing
Deficiency explaining Plaintiff's lack of compliance with
the local rules and checking the box labeled "Corrective
Actions Required." (First Notice of Filing Deficiency,
Doc. 13.) The bottom of the notice contains the following
warning: "After [fourteen] days[, ] a notice of
noncompliance will be submitted to a judicial officer for
possible sanctions, to include dismissal."
days later, on July 15, 2019, outside the fourteen-day
deadline set forth in the initial Notice of Filing
Deficiency, Plaintiff filed the second motion "to
clarify notice of filing deficiency and request."
(Second Mot.) The second motion (1) failed to correct the
deficiency in the first motion and (2) is, itself,
deficient. (Id.) On July 17, 2019, the Clerk
mailed Plaintiff a Notice of Deficiency as to the second
motion. (Second Notice of Filing Deficiency, Doc. 15.)
filings of pro se litigants are liberally construed,
"we nevertheless have required them to conform to
procedural rules." Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d
826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Loren v. Sasser,
309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002)).
A district court has authority to dismiss actions for failure
to comply with local rules. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Kilgo [v.
Ricks], 983 F.2d [189, ] 192 [(11th Cir. 1993)]. The
district court may exercise that power sua sponte, Pond
v. Braniff Airways, Inc., 453 F.2d 347, 349 (5th Cir.
Class v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc, 734 Fed.Appx.
634, 635 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam).
Order serves as Plaintiff's third and final warning that
he must comply with the Court's procedural rules.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff must
correct the deficiencies of his pending motions (Docs. 12,
14) within fourteen days of the date of this
Order. Failure to comply with this Order will result in the
dismissal of Plaintiff's case without
 The motion actually requests "a
meeting with the judge." Because ex parte
meetings with parties are not permitted in this situation,
the Court interprets Plaintiff's request as one for a
 Although Plaintiff did sign the second
motion, he did not affix a certificate of service.
(See Second Mot.)
 Additionally, United States Magistrate
Judge Brian K. Epps entered an Order with basic instructions
at the outset of the case. (Doc. 4.) The ...