Filed: May 04, 2012
Latest Update: May 04, 2012
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS, Magistrate Judge. The plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. On February 27, 2012, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. By order of this court filed February 28, 2012, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the plaintiff was advised of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. Despite
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS, Magistrate Judge. The plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. On February 27, 2012, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. By order of this court filed February 28, 2012, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the plaintiff was advised of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. Despite t..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS, Magistrate Judge.
The plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. On February 27, 2012, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. By order of this court filed February 28, 2012, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the plaintiff was advised of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. Despite this explanation, the plaintiff did not respond to the motion.
As the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court filed a second order on April 10, 2012, giving the plaintiff through April 30, 2012, to file his response to the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond, this action would be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The plaintiff did not respond.
Based on the foregoing, it appears the plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action. Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this Court's orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir.1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).
