REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JOSEPH R. MCCROREY, Magistrate Judge.

This action was filed by the Plaintiff, pro se, on May 12, 2011. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on December 27, 2011. As the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) was entered by the Court on December 28, 2011, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the Defendants' motion may be granted, thereby ending his case.

Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions as set forth in the Court's Roseboro order, the Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion. As such, it appeared to the Court that he did not oppose the motion. In an ordered issued February 6, 2012, Plaintiff was advised to notify the Court as to whether he wished to continue with this case, and to file a response to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment within fifteen (15) days from the date of that order, or this case would be recommended for dismissal. See Order filed February 6, 2012 (Court Document No. 40). Plaintiff has still failed to respond. Therefore, Plaintiff meets all of the criteria for dismissal under Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919 (4th Cir. 1982).1 Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. See Davis, 558 F.2d at 70; Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied sub nom, Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084 (1990) (Magistrate Judge's prior explicit warning that a recommendation of dismissal would result from plaintiff failing to obey his order was proper grounds for the district court to dismiss suit when plaintiff did not comply despite warning).