HOOD et al v. TOWN OF OCHLOCKNEE GEORGIA et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
FRANCES HOOD and
MATTHEW A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MAYOR RONELLE SEARCY,
et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO:
7:25-cv-184–WLS
ORDER
On February 18, 2026, Plaintiffs Frances Hood and Matthew A. Williams, proceeding
pro se in this action, filed a First Amended Complaint. On March 4, 2026, Defendants refiled
their Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) with Incorporated
Memorandum of Law (Doc. 32) (“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 Plaintiffs adequate notice regarding the Motion to Dismiss, 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
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).
Case 7:25-cv-00184-WLS Document 33 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 2

2
In addition to seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure
to state a claim, the Motion to Dismiss seeks to dismiss Plaintiff Matthew A Williams as a
Plaintiff in this case for lack of standing under Rule 12(b)(1).
Under the procedures and policies of this Court, motions to dismiss are normally
decided on briefs. Plaintiffs may submit their arguments to this Court by filing individual
briefs, not exceeding twenty pages each, 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(s) and there would be no trial or further proceedings.
As Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, the Court shall permit them an opportunity to file a
Response to the Motion to Dismiss, if they so desire, within twenty-one (21) days of this
Order or no later than Tuesday, March 31, 2026. Thereafter, the Court will consider
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and any opposition to the same filed by Plaintiffs and issue
its ruling.
Plaintiffs are noticed that if Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted, Plaintiffs’
Complaint may be dismissed without further notice or proceeding. Plaintiffs are further
noticed that upon a timely written motion for a reasonable time to obtain counsel, the Court
will consider the same before addressing the Motion to Dismiss. Otherwise, Plaintiffs are
entirely responsible for filing a timely response to the Motion to Dismiss as set out herein.
Plaintiffs are also noticed that since they only represent themselves individually as pro se
Plaintiffs, they must file their individual response, not a single response on behalf of both.
SO ORDERED, this 10th day of March 2026.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:25-cv-00184-WLS Document 33 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 2