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 February 10, 2026, Defendants Brooks County Board of Commissioners, Mike
Dewey, and Michael Gaines (together the “Moving Defendants”) filed an Amended Special
Appearance Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and a Memorandum in
Support thereof (Docs. 10 & 11) (together the “Motion to Dismiss”). The Motion to Dismiss
was originally filed December 8, 2025, in a 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, 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).
1 On January 7, 2026, Defendants Chandler Giddes and the Thomasville Humane Society filed a Notice of
Removal of this case from the Superior Court of Brooks County to this Court (Doc. 1).
Case 7:26-cv-00005-WLS Document 12 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 2

2
The Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of the Complaint on the basis that Plaintiff
failed to properly and timely serve the Moving Defendants.
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.
As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court shall permit Plaintiff an opportunity to file a
Response to Moving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, if he so desires, within twenty-one (21)
days of this Order or no later than Tuesday, March 17, 2026. Thereafter, the Court will
consider Moving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and any opposition to the same filed by
Plaintiff and issue its ruling.
Plaintiff is noticed that if Moving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted, Plaintiff’s
Complaint against Defendants Brooks County Board of Commissioners, Mike Dewey, and
Michael Gaines 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 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Otherwise,
Plaintiff is entirely responsible for filing a timely response to Moving Defendants’ motion as
set out herein.
SO ORDERED, this 24th day of February 2026.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:26-cv-00005-WLS Document 12 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 2