Avila v. Edgefield Federal Prison et al

Filing 65

ORDER that the plaintiff shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the defendants' motion to dismiss within fourteen days from the date of this order,re 43 MOTIO N to Dismiss filed by Mr Wilson, Mr Burkett, Mr Roper, Mr Clark, Mr Neal, S Cheek, L Morgan, Mr Upson, Mary Mitchell, V Kepner, H Koger, III, Mrs Lathrop, T Nixon, S Smith, Mr Santiago, Mr Hollet, Mr Johnson, Mr Flores, Mr Green, J Sullivan, Mr Kate, Mr Spark, Edgefield Federal Prison, Mr Acosta, Mrs Martin, Mr Collie, Mrs Jackson, Mr Fallen, Mr Evans, J Bryant. ( Response to Motion due by 5/31/2011)Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J Gossett on 5/16/2011. (jpet, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Martin Avila,
Plaintiff,
v.
Edgefield Federal Prison; Mary Mitchell,
Warden; Mr. Acosta, Assist. Warden;
Mr.Collie, Captain; Mr. Clark, Lt.; Mr. Hollet,
Lt.; Mr. Neal, C Unit Manager; Mr. H. Koger,
III, B Unit Manager; Mrs. S. Cheek, B Case
Manager; Mr. J. Bryant, B Counselor; Mr.
Johnson, C Counselor; Mr. Santiago, SIS; Mr.
Roper, Unit Officer; Mr. Upson, Unit Officer;
Mr. Flores, Unit Officer; Mr. Kate, Unit
Officer; Mrs. Martin, Unit Officer; Mr. Green,
Unit Officer; Mr. Evans, Unit Officer; Mrs.
Jackson, Unit Manager; Mr. Fallen, Assist.
Warden; Mr. S. Smith, Recreation; Mr. T.
Nixon; Mr. J. Sullivan; Mr. Spark; Mrs.
Lathrop; Mr. L. Morgan, Unit Officer; Mr.
Wilson, Unit Officer; Mr. Burkett, B; Mr.
Burkett; Mrs. V. Kepner,
Defendants.
_____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 0:10-2370-HMH-PJG

ORDER

The plaintiff has filed this action, pro se, seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff, a federal inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections, alleges violations of
his constitutional rights by the named defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
January 7, 2011, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 43.) As the plaintiff
is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th
Cir. 1975) on January 12, 2011, advising the plaintiff of the importance of a motion to dismiss and
of the need for him to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 44.) The plaintiff was specifically
Page 1 of 2

advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the defendants’ motion may be granted, thereby
ending his case.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order,
the plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion. As such, it appears to the court that he does not
oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the plaintiff shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with
this case and to file a response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss within fourteen (14) days from
the date of this order. Plaintiff is further advised that if he 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.

____________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
May 16, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2