GOLD v. HAYES, 5:13-2720-JMC-SVH. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20140819b26
Visitors: 19
Filed: Jul. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 29, 2014
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 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, 2014. [Entry #31]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) on May 24, 2014, advising him of the importance of the motion for summary judg
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 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, 2014. [Entry #31]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) on May 24, 2014, advising him of the importance of the motion for summary judgm..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
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, 2014. [Entry #31]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) on May 24, 2014, advising him of the importance of the motion for summary judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response. [Entry #32]. 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.
On July 14, 2014, the court ordered Plaintiff to advise whether he wished to continue with the case by July 28, 2014. [Entry #37]. Plaintiff has filed no response. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose Defendants' motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends this action be dismissed 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 RECOMMENDED.
Source: Leagle
