STOKES v. WARDEN OF LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 0:15-cv-00872-JFA-PJG. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20150817873
Visitors: 13
Filed: Aug. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 14, 2015
Summary: ORDER PAIGE J. GOSSETT Magistrate Judge . Petitioner, who is now represented by counsel, filed this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on July 27, 2015, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 26.) As of the date of this order, the petitioner has failed to respond to the motion in accordance with Local Civil Rule 7.06 (D.S.C.). As such, it appears to the court that he does not
Summary: ORDER PAIGE J. GOSSETT Magistrate Judge . Petitioner, who is now represented by counsel, filed this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on July 27, 2015, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 26.) As of the date of this order, the petitioner has failed to respond to the motion in accordance with Local Civil Rule 7.06 (D.S.C.). As such, it appears to the court that he does not ..
More
ORDER
PAIGE J. GOSSETT Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner, who is now represented by counsel, filed this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on July 27, 2015, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 26.) As of the date of this order, the petitioner has failed to respond to the motion in accordance with Local Civil Rule 7.06 (D.S.C.). As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the petitioner shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the respondent's motion for summary judgment within seven (7) days from the date of this order. Petitioner is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action may be decided on the record presented, see Local Civil Rule 7.06 (D.S.C.), or may 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.
Source: Leagle
