Report and Recommendation

KAYMANI D. WEST, 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 January 11, 2019. ECF No. 92. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order on January 11, 2019 pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of a motion for summary judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response by the January 25, 2019 deadline. ECF No. 93. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendants' motion may be granted, thereby ending this case. Despite the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion.

On February 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 95. The court granted Plaintiff's motion and extended the deadline to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment to March 11, 2019. ECF No. 96. Plaintiff failed to file a response by the extended deadline.

On March 22, 2019, the court ordered Plaintiff to advise it by April 5, 2019 whether he wished to continue with the case. ECF No. 99. Also on March 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Extension of Time in which he stated that he needed the Defendants to supply him with replacement copies of discovery materials that he claims were stolen or lost by SCDC. ECF No. 102. Plaintiff stated that he has served on Defendants a request for such copies. Id. The court granted Plaintiff's motion for an extension and gave him until April 19, 2019 to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 103.

As of this date, Plaintiff has filed no response. As such, it appears to the court that Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants' motion and wishes to abandon his action. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action against Defendants be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute, thereby ending this matter. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must `only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).