BRANNON v. McFADDEN, 5:14-cv-03135-BHH-KDW. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20141208a89
Visitors: 54
Filed: Dec. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 05, 2014
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 October 23, 2014, Respondent filed a Return and Memorandum to his Petition and a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 18, 19. 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
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 October 23, 2014, Respondent filed a Return and Memorandum to his Petition and a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 18, 19. 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..
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 October 23, 2014, Respondent filed a Return and Memorandum to his Petition and a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 18, 19. 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. 20. 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, Plaintiff 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 January 5, 2015. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice against Respondent 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
