WALKER v. CLINCH COUNTY GEORGIA et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
PATRICIA WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLINCH COUNTY, GEORGIA, and
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants.
____________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO:
7:25-cv-196–WLS
ORDER
On December 22, 2025, pro se Plaintiff, Patricia Walker, filed a Complaint (Doc. 1)
against 	Defendants 	Clinch 	County, 	Georgia 	(“Clinch 	County”), 	and 	Farmers 	Home
Administration alleging violations of her rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, conspiracy under
§ 1985, violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2409a related to Defendants’ claiming an adverse interest in
property in which Plaintiff alleges she has an interest, and a state law claim for fraud. On
January 20, 2026, Defendant Clinch County filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 3). 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, 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).
In addition, the Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of the Complaint against Clinch
County on the basis that Plaintiff failed to properly serve Clinch County. With respect to this
Case 7:25-cv-00196-WLS Document 7 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 2

2
assertion, Defendant filed the Affidavit of Debbie Pittman, an accounts payable clerk/deputy
clerk for Clinch County. (See Doc. 5).
Under the procedures and policies of this Court, motions to dismiss are normally
decided on briefs. Plaintiff may submit her argument to this Court by filing a brief, not
exceeding twenty pages, in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4.
Furthermore, the Court’s resolution of Clinch County’s Motion to Dismiss could result in
granting judgment against Plaintiff, and there would be no trial or further proceedings as to
Clinch County.
As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court shall permit Plaintiff an opportunity to file a
Response to Clinch County’s Motion to Dismiss, if she so desires, within twenty-one (21)
days of this Order or no later than Wednesday, February 11, 2026. Thereafter, the Court
will consider Clinch County’s Motion to Dismiss and any opposition to the same filed by
Plaintiff and issue its ruling.
Plaintiff is noticed that if Clinch County’s Motion to Dismiss is granted, Plaintiff’s
Complaint against Defendant Clinch County 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 Clinch County’s Motion
to Dismiss. Otherwise, Plaintiff is entirely responsible for filing a timely response to Clinch
County’s motion as set out herein, and pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
this Court’s Local Rules.
SO ORDERED, this 21st day of January 2026.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:25-cv-00196-WLS Document 7 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 2