Filed: Dec. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 03, 2015
Summary: ORDER KAYMANI D. WEST , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner, Branson Jamal Thompson, is a state prisoner who filed this pro se Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On September 17, 2015, Respondent filed a Return and Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 28, 29. Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order 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 t
Summary: ORDER KAYMANI D. WEST , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner, Branson Jamal Thompson, is a state prisoner who filed this pro se Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On September 17, 2015, Respondent filed a Return and Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 28, 29. Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order 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..
More
ORDER
KAYMANI D. WEST, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner, Branson Jamal Thompson, is a state prisoner who filed this pro se Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 17, 2015, Respondent filed a Return and Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 28, 29. Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order 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 adequate responses. ECF No. 30. Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Respondent's motion may be granted, thereby ending this case. Petitioner was later granted an extension of time to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment, allowing him until November 23, 2015 to file a response. ECF No. 35.
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 he does not oppose the Motion and wishes to abandon this action against Defendants. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by December 17, 2015. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action 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.