Filed: Dec. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 2017
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SHIVA V. HODGES , Magistrate Judge . Herbert Demond York ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this action on December 21, 2016. [ECF No. 1]. On October 23, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 57]. As Plaintiff 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 the motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response by November 27
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SHIVA V. HODGES , Magistrate Judge . Herbert Demond York ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this action on December 21, 2016. [ECF No. 1]. On October 23, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 57]. As Plaintiff 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 the motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response by November 27,..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge.
Herbert Demond York ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this action on December 21, 2016. [ECF No. 1]. On October 23, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 57]. As Plaintiff 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 the motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response by November 27, 2017. [ECF No. 58]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendants' motion may be granted. Id. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion.
On December 1, 2017, the court ordered Petitioner to advise by December 15, 2017, whether he wished to continue with the case. [ECF No. 64]. On December 12, 2017, the court's December 1, 2017 order was returned as undeliverable, with a mark on the envelope indicating the recipient had been release without leaving an address. [ECF No. 66]. Plaintiff has previously been warned:
You are ordered to always keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing (United States District Court, 901 Richland Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201) if your address changes for any reason, so as to assure that orders or other matters that specify deadlines for you to meet will be received by you. If as a result of your failure to comply with this order, you fail to meet a deadline set by this court, your case may be dismissed for violating this order. Therefore, if you have a change of address before this case is ended, you must comply with this order by immediately advising the Clerk of Court in writing of such change of address and providing the court with the docket number of all pending cases you have filed with this court. Your failure to do so will not be excused by the court.
[ECF No. 6 at 3]. Plaintiff has failed to keep the court apprised of his address, and as a result, neither the court nor the defendants have any means of contacting him concerning his case.
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk is directed to send this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff at his last known address. If Plaintiff notifies the court within the time set for filing objections to this Report and Recommendation that he wishes to continue with this case and provides a current address, the Clerk is directed to vacate this Report and Recommendation and return this file to the undersigned for further handling. If, however, no objections are filed, the Clerk shall forward this Report and Recommendation to the district judge for disposition.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
