Filed: Jun. 19, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 19, 2014
Summary: ORDER THOMAS E. ROGERS, III, Magistrate Judge. The Plaintiff, Denon D. Carson, Jr., filed this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 on July 22, 2013, alleging various claims for violations of his constitutional rights. Defendants Reynolds and Riggins filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 1, 2014. The undersigned issued an order filed April 4, 2014, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4 th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the motion for summary judgment procedure and the possi
Summary: ORDER THOMAS E. ROGERS, III, Magistrate Judge. The Plaintiff, Denon D. Carson, Jr., filed this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 on July 22, 2013, alleging various claims for violations of his constitutional rights. Defendants Reynolds and Riggins filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 1, 2014. The undersigned issued an order filed April 4, 2014, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4 th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the motion for summary judgment procedure and the possib..
More
ORDER
THOMAS E. ROGERS, III, Magistrate Judge.
The Plaintiff, Denon D. Carson, Jr., filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 22, 2013, alleging various claims for violations of his constitutional rights. Defendants Reynolds and Riggins filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 1, 2014. The undersigned issued an order filed April 4, 2014, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the motion for summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately.
The Plaintiff is given ten (10) days from the date of this order to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment or his case may be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b), and that dismissal would be considered an adjudication on the merits, i.e., with prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
