Filed: Jul. 31, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 31, 2015
Summary: ORDER SHIVA V. HODGES , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on June 4, 2015. [ECF No. 33]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on June 5, 2015, advising him of the importance of the motion for summary judgment and of the
Summary: ORDER SHIVA V. HODGES , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on June 4, 2015. [ECF No. 33]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on June 5, 2015, advising him of the importance of the motion for summary judgment and of the ..
More
ORDER
SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on June 4, 2015. [ECF No. 33]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on June 5, 2015, advising him of the importance of the motion for summary judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response by July 9, 2015. [ECF No. 34]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendants' motion may be granted.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment by August 14, 2015.1 Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal 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.
FootNotes
1. The undersigned initially issued an order setting a deadline of July 28, 2015 for Plaintiff's response [ECF No. 36], but the order was returned in the mail on July 29, 2015 [ECF No. 38]. Because it appears Plaintiff remains at Kirkland Correctional Institution, the undersigned extends the deadline in this order.
