MARCUS v. WARDEN ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 5:14-cv-04390-DCN-KDW. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20150506b24
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 05, 2015
Latest Update: May 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER KAYMANI D. WEST , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner is a state prisoner who filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On March 23, 2015, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Return and Memorandum to his Petition. ECF Nos. 21, 22. Because Plaintiff 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 such motions and of the need for him
Summary: ORDER KAYMANI D. WEST , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner is a state prisoner who filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On March 23, 2015, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Return and Memorandum to his Petition. ECF Nos. 21, 22. Because Plaintiff 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 such motions and of the need for him t..
More
ORDER
KAYMANI D. WEST, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner is a state prisoner who filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 23, 2015, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Return and Memorandum to his Petition. ECF Nos. 21, 22. Because Plaintiff 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 such motions and of the need for him to file adequate responses. ECF No. 23. Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the Respondent's Motion may be granted, thereby ending this case against him.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, Petitioner 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, Petitioner is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment by June 5, 2015. Petitioner is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice against Petitioner 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.
Source: Leagle
