Filed: May 06, 2016
Latest Update: May 06, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS E. ROGERS, III , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed his complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 on April 7, 2015. Defendant Chockalingham filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment (Document # 90) on February 24, 2016, and the remaining Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Document # 94) on February 25, 2016. Because he is proceeding pro se, the undersigned issued orders 1 pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309
Summary: ORDER THOMAS E. ROGERS, III , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed his complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 on April 7, 2015. Defendant Chockalingham filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment (Document # 90) on February 24, 2016, and the remaining Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Document # 94) on February 25, 2016. Because he is proceeding pro se, the undersigned issued orders 1 pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 ..
More
ORDER
THOMAS E. ROGERS, III, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 7, 2015. Defendant Chockalingham filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment (Document # 90) on February 24, 2016, and the remaining Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Document # 94) on February 25, 2016. Because he is proceeding pro se, the undersigned issued orders1 pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the motion for summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to response. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond, Defendants' motions may be granted, thereby ending his case. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro orders, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motions.
Plaintiff is given ten days from the date of this order to file a response to the motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
