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 March 24, 2017. [ECF No. 1]. On October 20, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 33]. 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 20, 2
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SHIVA V. HODGES , Magistrate Judge . Herbert Demond York ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this action on March 24, 2017. [ECF No. 1]. On October 20, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 33]. 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 20, 20..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge.
Herbert Demond York ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this action on March 24, 2017. [ECF No. 1]. On October 20, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 33]. 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 20, 2017. [ECF No. 34]. 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 November 28, 2017, the court ordered Petitioner to advise by December 12, 2017, whether he wished to continue with the case. [ECF No. 39]. Petitioner has filed no response.1 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.
FootNotes
1. Although Plaintiff technically has an additional three mailing days, the court notes that mail sent to Plaintiff in another case before the court has been returned with a mark on the envelope indicating the recipient had been release without leaving an address. See ECF No. 66 in C/A No. 1:16-3971-RMG-SVH. A district court may take judicial notice of materials in the court's own files from prior proceedings. See Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989) (noting that the most frequent use of judicial notice is in noticing the content of court records); Fletcher v. Bryan, 175 F.2d 716, 717 (4th Cir. 1949).
