Filed: Aug. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 04, 2014
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PAIGE J. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On May 29, 2014, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 33.) By order of this court filed May 30, 2013, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the plaintiff was advised of the dismissal and summary judgment procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately.
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PAIGE J. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On May 29, 2014, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 33.) By order of this court filed May 30, 2013, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the plaintiff was advised of the dismissal and summary judgment procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. (..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PAIGE J. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 29, 2014, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 33.) By order of this court filed May 30, 2013, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the plaintiff was advised of the dismissal and summary judgment procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. (ECF No. 34.)
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, the plaintiff failed to respond to the motion. As the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court filed a second order on July 9, 2011, advising the plaintiff that it appeared to the court that he was not opposing the motion and wished to abandon this action, and giving the plaintiff an additional fourteen (14) days in which to file his response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 40.) The plaintiff was specifically warned that if he failed to respond, this action would 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). Despite this second warning, the plaintiff still did not respond. Therefore, the plaintiff meets all of the criteria for dismissal under Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919 (4th Cir. 1982).1
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. See Davis, 588 F.2d at 70; Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (stating that magistrate judge's prior explicit warning that a recommendation of dismissal would result from the plaintiff failing to obey his order was proper grounds for the district court to dismiss the suit when the plaintiff did not comply despite the warning), cert. denied sub nom, Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084 (1990); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In light of the court's recommendation, the court further recommends that any pending motions (ECF No. 33) be terminated.
