GIBSON v. MUELLER, 1:12-2622-DCN-SVH. (2013)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20130605c77
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2013
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 April 23, 2013. [Entry #40]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order on April 24, 2013, 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 n
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 April 23, 2013. [Entry #40]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order on April 24, 2013, 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 ne..
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 April 23, 2013. [Entry #40]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order on April 24, 2013, 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. [Entry #41]. 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 June 18, 2013. 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.
Source: Leagle
