The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-647-RJC-DCK
CRAIG MESICK and JOYCE MESICK, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) ORDER
)
v. )
)
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD )
OF EDUCATION, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on pro se Plaintiffs’ “Motion for
Documents and Motion to Extend Deadline” (Document No. 69). This motion has been referred
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is
appropriate. The undersigned will grant the motion with modification.
As previously noted by the undersigned, Plaintiffs’ responses to the pending motions to
dismiss (Document Nos. 57 and 60) were due by July 29-30, 2024. (Document No. 66) (citing
LCvR 7.1(e)). In accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Court
issued an Order on August 1, 2023, advising Plaintiffs, who are proceeding without counsel, of
the right to respond to Defendants’ motions to dismiss. (Document No. 63); see also (Document
Nos. 30, 37, 46). Plaintiffs received the Court’s Order (Document No. 63) on August 5, 2024. See
(Document No. 64). Nevertheless, Plaintiffs failed to respond to the pending motions, or to seek
an extension of time to do so, by the extended deadline of August 16, 2024.
On August 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion For Extension Of Time To Respond To
Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss” (Document No. 65). Plaintiffs specifically requested additional
time to respond to Document Nos. 57 and 60, but made no mention of needing the copies of those
documents. (Document No. 65).
On August 21, 2024, the undersigned granted Plaintiffs’ “Motion For Extension Of
Time...” (Document No. 65) with modification. (Document No. 66). Plaintiffs were directed to
“file a response to the pending motions to dismiss (Document Nos. 57 and 60) on or before
September 10, 2024.” Id. Plaintiffs received the Court’s Order (Document No. 66) on August
28, 2024. (Document Nos. 67 and 68).
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Documents and Motion to Extend
Deadline” (Document No. 69) filed on September 12, 2024, two (2) days after Plaintiffs’ current
deadline to respond to the pending motions to dismiss. For the first time, Plaintiffs suggest they
do not have “access to documents 57 and 60, which are essential for preparing an appropriate
response to the pending Motion to Dismiss.” (Document No. 69, p. 1). Plaintiffs now seek an
extension to October 10, 2024. Id.
The undersigned is not persuaded that Plaintiffs did not receive copies of the pending
motions and/or were unable to request the necessary documents in time to meet the current
deadline. Although Plaintiffs brought this action almost one (1) year ago in this Court, it appears
that they are attempting to keep this action from moving forward. Plaintiffs have repeatedly failed
to abide by this Court’s Orders and deadlines. As such, Plaintiffs are respectfully advised that if
their dilatory conduct continues, the Court may dismiss this case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b)
Despite the foregoing observations, the undersigned will allow Plaintiffs one (1) more
extension of time.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that pro se Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Documents and
Motion to Extend Deadline” (Document No. 69) is GRANTED with modification. Plaintiffs
shall file a response to the pending motions to dismiss (Document Nos. 57 and 60) on or before
September 27, 2024. Failure to file timely and persuasive responses will likely lead to the
dismissal of this lawsuit.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall provide Plaintiffs with copies
of Document Nos. 57, 58, 60, 61, 63, and 66.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send_a copy of this Order and the documents identified
above to pro se Plaintiffs by certified U.S. Mail, return receipt requested.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 13, 2024
David C. Keesler “y
United States Magistrate Judge et