ANDERSON v. HINDI et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
WESLEY ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JONATHAN A. HINDI,
USA FORCES LLC and
PROGRESSIVE SOUTHEASTERN
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
_______________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO:
7:24-cv-005–WLS
ORDER AND NOTICE OF
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On October 23, 2025, Defendants Jonathan A. Hindi, USA Forces, LLC, and
Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against
Plaintiff Wesley Anderson. (Doc. 23). Upon reviewing the docket, the Court notes that an
Order (Doc. 22) was entered August 26, 2025, granting a motion to withdraw filed by
Plaintiff’s original counsel, Jody D. Peterman and the law firm of Jody D. Peterman.1 The
August 26, 2025 Order advised Plaintiff of his responsibilities while he was proceeding pro se,
pending notice of appearance of his new counsel. Specifically, Plaintiff was notified that:
Unless and until Plaintiff’s new counsel enters an appearance, Plaintiff is solely
responsible for the prosecution of his case. This includes, but is not limited to,
. . . making court appearances, timely responding to opposing counsel’s motions
and requests, familiarizing himself with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and Evidence, complying with the Court’s discovery and scheduling order, and
preparing for trial. Failure or refusal to meet these obligations could result in
1 The motion to withdraw (Doc. 21) advised the Court that on August 20, 2025, via text, Plaintiff notified the
Peterman Firm that he had retained new counsel and that their representation was terminated. Per such motion,
on August 22, 2025, Plaintiff’s new counsel, Hodgins and Kiber of Atlanta, Georgia, contacted the Peterman
Firm and requested a copy of Plaintiff’s file. To date the Hodgins and Kiber firm has not filed a notice of
appearance.
Case 7:24-cv-00005-WLS Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 1 of 3

2
sanctions or adverse consequences, including and up to dismissal of the
complaint.
(Doc. 22 at 2). The Court reminds Plaintiff that because a notice of appearance has not been
entered by new counsel, he is proceeding in this action pro se. The docket reflects the Clerk’s
entry of a Notice to Pro Se Party of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 24) (“Notice”)
advising that such motion has been filed as well as an entry that the Clerk mailed the Motion
for Summary Judgment to Plaintiff via United States Postal Service, including all attachments
referenced therein. (Doc. 24 & docket entry of October 24, 2025).
The Notice advises Plaintiff of his duties with respect to responding to a motion for
summary judgment and of potential consequences for failure to properly respond. In cases
where motions for summary judgment are filed against a party who is proceeding pro se, it is
the Court’s practice to also inform the pro se party, in writing and in more detail, of the
requirements surrounding a motion for summary judgment and the potential consequences of
failing to properly respond. The Court deems it appropriate and necessary to take this
opportunity to do so to insure that a pro se plaintiff receives adequate notice (1) that a motion
for summary judgment has been filed against him in this case, (2) that he has the right to
oppose the granting of said motion, and (3) that failure to oppose said motion may result in a
final judgment being rendered against him. Nothing in this Order, nor the failure of new
counsel to enter an appearance, relieves or should be understood to relieve Plaintiff of his
responsibility to prosecute and defend his complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court with which Plaintiff is also required to
become familiar. Plaintiff is NOTIFIED as follows:
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a motion for summary
judgment may be filed and granted if there exists no genuine issue of material fact for trial.
Under the procedures and policies of this Court, motions for summary judgment are normally
decided on briefs. The parties may submit their arguments to the Court by filing briefs in
support of, or briefs in opposition to, such motions. The party opposing the motion for
summary judgment – here, Plaintiff Wesley Anderson – may not rest upon the pleadings but
must respond with affirmative affidavits, depositions, documents or rely on evidence that is
part of the record.
Case 7:24-cv-00005-WLS Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Unless the Court has granted prior permission, any brief should not exceed 20 pages.
M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4. In addition to submitting his brief in opposition or response to Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff must also attach a separate and concise statement of
facts, numbered separately, to which Plaintiff contends there exists a genuine dispute to be
tried. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 56. Plaintiff must also respond to each of Defendants’ numbered
material facts. All material facts contained in Defendants’ statement which are not specifically
controverted by specific citation to particular parts of materials in the record shall be deemed
to have been admitted, unless otherwise inappropriate. All documents and other record
materials relied upon by Plaintiff in opposing Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
must be clearly identified, and where available, dates, specific page numbers, and line numbers
must be given. M.D. Ga. L.R. 56.
FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO AND REBUT THE LEGAL
ARGUMENTS SET FORTH IN DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF MAY RESULT IN A
FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST YOU, IF OTHERWISE APPROPRIATE UNDER
THE LAW. The Court could grant judgment to Defendants and there would be no trial or
further proceedings.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED AND DIRECTED to file a response to said
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS OF
THE DATE THE MOTION WAS FILED BY DEFENDANTS. Defendants shall have
fourteen (14) days from the filing of Plaintiff’s response, if any, to submit a reply to the
response. Thereafter, the Court will consider Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and
any opposition to the same filed by Plaintiff and issue its ruling.
SO ORDERED, this 27th day of October 2025.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:24-cv-00005-WLS Document 25 Filed 10/27/25 Page 3 of 3