Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG

JUDY KAY MISKELL, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-52 (GROH)

CONRAD W. VARNER, ESQ., Defendant.

ROSEBORO NOTICE On August 31, 2012, the above-named defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 9] the pro se plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. 1] pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). The Court notes that the plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The Court has a mandatory duty to advise the plaintiff of her right to file responsive material, and to alert her to the fact that her failure to so respond might result in the entry of an order of dismissal against her. Davis v. Zahradrich, 600 F.2d 458, 460 (4th Cir. 1979); Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975). The plaintiff is so advised. In ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2), this Court must determine whether or not a particular defendant may be dismissed from the lawsuit if personal jurisdiction over that defendant is absent. When personal jurisdiction is properly challenged under Rule 12(b)(2), the jurisdictional question is to be resolved by the judge, with the burden on the plaintiff ultimately to prove grounds for jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Carefirst of Maryland, Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Centers, Inc., 334 F.3d

390, 396 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 59

Download 44535.pdf

West Virginia Law