Mason v. Warden, Graham Correctional Institution, 5:15-cv-04963-RBH-KDW. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20160524c86
Visitors: 5
Filed: May 23, 2016
Latest Update: May 23, 2016
Summary: ORDER KAYMANI D. WEST , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner, Julie Melton Mason, is a state prisoner who filed this pro se Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On April 13, 2016, Respondent filed a Return and Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 16, 17. Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising her of the importance of such motions and of the need for him to file a
Summary: ORDER KAYMANI D. WEST , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner, Julie Melton Mason, is a state prisoner who filed this pro se Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. On April 13, 2016, Respondent filed a Return and Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 16, 17. Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising her of the importance of such motions and of the need for him to file ad..
More
ORDER
KAYMANI D. WEST, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner, Julie Melton Mason, is a state prisoner who filed this pro se Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 13, 2016, Respondent filed a Return and Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 16, 17. Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising her of the importance of such motions and of the need for him to file adequate responses. ECF No. 18. Petitioner was specifically advised that if she failed to respond adequately, Respondent's motion may be granted, thereby ending this case.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Motion. As such, it appears to the court that she does not oppose the Motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner is directed to advise the court whether she wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment by June 23, 2016. Petitioner is further advised that if she 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.
Source: Leagle
