Filed: Jan. 11, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2016
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 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 a motion for judgment on the pleadings on October 16, 2015. [ECF No. 17]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on November 12, 2015, advising him of the importance of the
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 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 a motion for judgment on the pleadings on October 16, 2015. [ECF No. 17]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on November 12, 2015, advising him of the importance of the m..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
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 a motion for judgment on the pleadings on October 16, 2015. [ECF No. 17]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on November 12, 2015, advising him of the importance of the motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response by December 17, 2015. [ECF No. 21]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendants' motion may be granted. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion.
On December 23, 2015, the court ordered Plaintiff to advise whether he wished to continue with the case by January 6, 2016. [ECF No. 23]. Plaintiff has filed no response. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion 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.
