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 3, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 22.) By Order of this court filed February 3, 2014, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Plaintiff was advised of the summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. (Dkt. No. 23.) Despite this explanation, and two extensions of time, the Plaintiff did not respond to the motion. (Dkt. No. 23; Dkt. No. 26; Dkt. No. 29.)

As the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court filed an Order on May 7, 2014, giving the Plaintiff through May 27, 2014, to file his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 31.) 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).