REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MARY GORDON BAKER, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Antwaun Tyree Stevenson, appearing pro se, brings this action under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. On May 16, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No 25.) On May 16, 2018, this Court issued an Order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion. (Dkt. No. 26.) Plaintiff's response was due on June 18, 2018. Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants' motion. On June 27, 2018, this Court issued an Order extending the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' motion by July 17, 2018. (Dkt. No. 28.) Plaintiff still failed to respond, and the Court recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 32.)

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address on August 6, 2018 (Dkt. No. 34), and the District Court recommitted the matter to the undersigned so that Plaintiff could receive a copy of Defendants' motion at Plaintiff's updated address and have time to respond (Dkt. No. 38). On August 24, 2018, the Court directed Defendants to reserve their motion at Plaintiff's updated address (Dkt. No. 40), and Defendants filed a Certificate of Service that same day, stating that service had been completed (Dkt. No. 43). On August 24, 2018, this Court issued an Order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), again advising Plaintiff of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion. (Dkt. No. 41.) Plaintiff's response was due on September 24, 2018. Plaintiff has still failed to respond to Defendants' motion. On September 4, 2018, the Roseboro Order was returned as undeliverable, and Plaintiff has failed to provide an updated address. (Dkt. No. 45.) Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this Court's orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir.1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must `only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).