ORDER

SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brought this action requesting a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on September 13, 2017. [ECF No. 9]. As Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of a motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response by October 16, 2017. [ECF No. 11]. Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Respondent's motion may be granted, thereby ending this case. Id. On October 12, 2017, November 17, 2017, and December 20, 2017, the undersigned extended Petitioner's deadline, granting him until January 16, 2018, to respond to Respondent's motion. [ECF Nos. 14, 17, 20].

Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, Petitioner has failed to respond to the motion. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned orders Petitioner to advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Respondent's motion for summary judgment by February 6, 2018. Because Petitioner has already been granted generous extensions, no further extensions will be granted. Petitioner is further advised that if he fails to respond, the undersigned will recommend this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.