MCLEOD v. SMITH et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
RICHARD JERRY McLEOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
CATHERINE SMITH,
et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO:
7:26-cv-05–WLS
ORDER
On January 7, 2026, Defendants Chandler Giddes (“Giddes”) and Thomasville
Humane Society (“THS” and together with Giddes, the “Moving Defendants”) filed a Notice
of Removal of this case from the Superior Court of Brooks County to this Court (Doc. 1). On
January 13, 2026, Giddes and THS filed a Special Appearance Motion to Dismiss and
Memorandum in Support thereof (Docs. 5 & 6). The Motion and Memorandum were
originally filed January 7, 2026, in the state court proceeding.1 Pro se Plaintiff Richard Jerry
McLeod has not filed a response to the 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 Plaintiff adequate notice regarding the Motion to Dismiss and
Memorandum, 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
1 The documents were also refiled in this Court on January 7, 2026 (Docs. 3 & 4). However, because of
deficiency notices, the Moving Defendants were required to refile the documents.
Case 7:26-cv-00005-WLS Document 7 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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).
In addition, the Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of the Complaint on the basis that
Plaintiff failed to properly serve Giddes and THS.
Under the procedures and policies of this Court, motions to dismiss are normally
decided on briefs. Plaintiff may submit his argument to this Court by filing a brief, not
exceeding 20 pages, 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, and there would be no trial or further proceedings as to the Moving Defendants
Giddes and THS.
As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court shall permit Plaintiff an opportunity to file a
Response to Moving Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, if he so desires, within twenty-one (21)
days of this Order or no later than Thursday, February 5, 2026. Thereafter, the Court will
consider Moving Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and any opposition to the same filed by
Plaintiff and issue its ruling.
Plaintiff is noticed that if Moving Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted, Plaintiff’s
Complaint against Defendants Chandler Giddes and Thomasville Humane Society may be
dismissed without further notice or proceeding. Plaintiff is further noticed that upon a timely
written motion for a reasonable time to obtain counsel, the Court will consider the same before
addressing Moving Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Otherwise, Plaintiff is entirely responsible
for filing a timely response to Moving Defendant’s motion as set out herein.
SO ORDERED, this 15th day of January 2026.
/s/W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:26-cv-00005-WLS Document 7 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 2