RETANA v. BOULWARE, 5:15-cv-00523-RBH-KDW. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20150605d34
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 04, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2015
Summary: ORDER KAYMANI D. WEST , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner is a state prisoner who filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On April 24, 2015, Respondent filed a Return and Memorandum to her Petition. ECF Nos. 14, 15. Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising her of the importance of such motions and of the need for her to file adequate responses. ECF
Summary: ORDER KAYMANI D. WEST , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner is a state prisoner who filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On April 24, 2015, Respondent filed a Return and Memorandum to her Petition. ECF Nos. 14, 15. Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising her of the importance of such motions and of the need for her to file adequate responses. ECF ..
More
ORDER
KAYMANI D. WEST, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner is a state prisoner who filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 24, 2015, Respondent filed a Return and Memorandum to her Petition. ECF Nos. 14, 15. Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising her of the importance of such motions and of the need for her to file adequate responses. ECF No. 16. Petitioner was specifically advised that if she failed to respond adequately, the Respondent's Motion may be granted, thereby ending this case against her.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, Petitioner has failed to respond to the Motion. As such, it appears to the court that she does not oppose the Motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner is directed to advise the court whether she wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment by July 6, 2015. Petitioner is further advised that if she fails to respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice against Petitioner 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 ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
