Filed: Dec. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 30, 2014
Summary: Report and Recommendation KAYMANI D. WEST, 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. On September 2, 2014, all Defendants, except Lieutenant Williams, filed a Motion to Dismiss and alternatively a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 32. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order on September 3, 2014, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 3
Summary: Report and Recommendation KAYMANI D. WEST, 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. On September 2, 2014, all Defendants, except Lieutenant Williams, filed a Motion to Dismiss and alternatively a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 32. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order on September 3, 2014, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 30..
More
Report and Recommendation
KAYMANI D. WEST, 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. On September 2, 2014, all Defendants, except Lieutenant Williams, filed a Motion to Dismiss and alternatively a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 32. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order on September 3, 2014, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of such motions and of the need for him to file an adequate response. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendants' motion may be granted, thereby ending this case. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants' Motion.
Thereafter, the court granted Plaintiff an extension to respond to Defendants' Motion and instructed him to respond on or before October 30, 2014. ECF No. 38. On November 24, 2014, the court ordered Plaintiff to advise whether he wished to continue with the case by December 22, 2014.1 ECF No. 42. Plaintiff has filed no response. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the Motion of Defendants 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.
FootNotes
1. Additionally, on December 22, 2014, the court entered an order instructing Plaintiff to provide sufficient, accurate, and complete information on Form USM-285 for Lieutenant Williams after service upon him was un-executed. ECF No. 46. The court instructed Plaintiff to provide updated service forms within 21 days of the December 22, 2014 order. See id. To date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the December 22, 2014 order pertaining to executing service on Lieutenant Williams.
