Davila v. Thomas, 1:15-4956-MGL-SVH. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20170925686
Visitors: 20
Filed: Aug. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 22, 2017
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SHIVA V. HODGES , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brought this action requesting a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on June 23, 2017. [ECF No. 28]. 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 July 27, 2017. [E
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SHIVA V. HODGES , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brought this action requesting a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on June 23, 2017. [ECF No. 28]. 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 July 27, 2017. [EC..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brought this action requesting a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on June 23, 2017. [ECF No. 28]. 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 July 27, 2017. [ECF No. 30]. Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Respondent's motion may be granted, thereby ending this case. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, Petitioner has failed to respond to the motion.
On August 1, 2017, the court ordered Petitioner to advise by August 15, 2017, whether he wished to continue with the case. [ECF No. 32]. Petitioner has filed no response. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends 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 RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached "Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation."
Source: Leagle
