Curry v. South Carolina, State of

Filing 31

ORDER directing the petitioner to advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the respondent's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment within fourteen days from the da te of this order, re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, 24 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, ( Response to Motion due by 9/23/2011). Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J Gossett on 9/9/2011. (jpet, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Thaddeus Lorenzo Curry,

)
)
Petitioner
)
)
v.
)
)
Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution,
)
)
Respondent.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 0:11-677-MBS-PJG

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this action, pro se, seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. The respondent filed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on July 29,
2011, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF Nos. 24 & 25.) As the petitioner is
proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th
Cir. 1975) on August 1, 2011, advising the petitioner of the importance of a motion to dismiss and
for summary judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 26.) The
petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the respondent’s motions
may be granted, thereby ending his case.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order,
the petitioner has failed to respond to the motions. As such, it appears to the court that he does not
oppose the motions and wishes to abandon this action.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the petitioner shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with
this case and to file a response to the respondent’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment
within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. The petitioner is further advised that if he fails
Page 1 of 2

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
September 9, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2