Filed: Jun. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER 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 motions for summary judgment against Plaintiff on May 5, 2015. [ECF Nos. 46, 48]. 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 6, 2015, advising him of the importance of the motions for summar
Summary: ORDER 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 motions for summary judgment against Plaintiff on May 5, 2015. [ECF Nos. 46, 48]. 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 6, 2015, advising him of the importance of the motions for summary..
More
ORDER
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 motions for summary judgment against Plaintiff on May 5, 2015. [ECF Nos. 46, 48]. 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 6, 2015, advising him of the importance of the motions for summary judgment and of the need for him to file adequate responses. [ECF No. 50]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendants' motions may be granted.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, Plaintiff has failed to respond Defendants' motions. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motions and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file responses to Defendants' motions for summary judgment by July 7, 2015. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, Plaintiff's claims will 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
