PARKER v. STEVENSON, 5:13-cv-02795-TLW-KDW. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20160204d62
Visitors: 2
Filed: Feb. 03, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 03, 2016
Summary: ORDER KAYMANI D. WEST , 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. On December 7, 2015, Defendants filed a Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 106. In an order the court advised Plaintiff of the importance of such motions and of the need for him to file adequate response pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). ECF No. 107.
Summary: ORDER KAYMANI D. WEST , 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. On December 7, 2015, Defendants filed a Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 106. In an order the court advised Plaintiff of the importance of such motions and of the need for him to file adequate response pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). ECF No. 107. ..
More
ORDER
KAYMANI D. WEST, 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. On December 7, 2015, Defendants filed a Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 106. In an order the court advised Plaintiff of the importance of such motions and of the need for him to file adequate response pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). ECF No. 107. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the Defendants' Motion may be granted, thereby ending this case.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, ECF No. 107, Plaintiff has failed to file a Response to Defendants' Motion. As such, it appears to the court that he does not wish to file a Supplemental Response. 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' Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment by February 29, 2016. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, the court will rule on the pending Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 106, without considering a supplemental response from Plaintiff and relying only on Plaintiff's prior Response to Defendants' initial Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 71.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
