Alcala v. Edgefield Federal Prison et al

Filing 55

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 36 MOTI ON to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support filed by Martin, Kate, Mr Clark, Mr Neal, Jackson, Mr Mahomes, Roper, Mr Boltin, Mary Mitchell, Mr Holet, Green, Upson, Mrs Jones, Mr Santiago, Mr Johnson, Flores, Edgefield Federal Prison, Mr Acosta, Mr Collie, Evans. ( 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
Rosendo Alcala,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Edgefield Federal Prison; Mary Mitchell,
)
Warden; Mr. Acosta, Assist. Warden; Mr.
)
Collie, Captain; Mr. Clark, Lt.; Mr. Holet, Lt.; )
Mr. Neal, C Unit Manager; Mr. Mahomes, A )
Unit Manager; Mr. Boltin, A 4 Counselor; Mr. )
Johnson, C 1 Counselor; Mr. Santiago, S.I.S.; )
Roper, Unit Officer; Upson, Unit Officer;
)
Flores, Unit Officer; Kate, Unit Officer;
)
Martin, Unit Officer; Green, Unit Officer;
)
Evans, Unit Officer; Jackson, Unit Officer;
)
Mrs. Jones, A 4 Case Manager,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 0:10-2727-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 18, 2011, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 36.) 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 19, 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. 37.) The plaintiff was specifically
advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the defendants’ motion may be granted, thereby
ending his case.

Page 1 of 2

On February 9, 2011, the plaintiff filed two motions in which he requests additional time to
conduct discovery and respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 41 & 42.) The
defendants have raised a defense of qualified immunity, among other defenses, and it does not appear
that discovery is necessary at this time for the plaintiff to respond to the defenses raised in the
defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions. (See Roseboro Order, ECF No. 37 at 2.) Accordingly, the
plaintiff’s motions for additional time to conduct discovery prior to filing a response are denied. It
is hereby
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