Smith v. US Bank National Association et al

Filing 58

ORDER Plaintiff has failed to respond to defendants' motion for summary judgment 40 . As such, it appears to the court that she does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, Plain tiff is directed to advise the court whether she wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Moving Defendants' motion for summary judgment by July 6, 2012. Plaintiff is further advised that if she fails to respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 6/22/2012. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Charlotte Ann Smith,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Bank of America, N.A., as Successor by )
Merger [to] LaSalle Bank N.A. as
)
Trustee for Certificate Holder[s] of EMC )
Mortgage Corporation, Loan Trust 2005- )
A Mortgage Loan Pass-Through
)
Certificates, Series 2005-A, EMC
)
Mortgage Corporation, and Parent
)
Companies, The Bear Stearns
)
Companies, LLC and JP Morgan Chase
)
& Companies, Guardian Fidelity
)
Mortgage Inc., Guardian President and
)
CEO Howard H. Wright, Jr., Guardian
)
Assistant Manager Stacy Youngblood,
)
Guardian Chairman of the Board John
)
Good, Guardian Member
)
Owners/Shareholder[s]/Stockholders,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

C/A No.: 0:11-3251-MBS-SVH

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action in South Carolina state court on
November 16, 2011.

[Entry #1-1].

Defendants removed the case to this court on

November 30, 2011. [Entry #1]. Defendants (1) Bank of America, N.A., as Successor by
Merger to LaSalle Bank National Association as Trustee for Certificate Holders of EMC
Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-A Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-A,
(2) EMC Mortgage Corporation, (3) The Bear Stearns Companies, LLC, and (4) JP
Morgan Chase & Co. (collectively “Moving Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss, for

judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment on May 17, 2012. [Entry #40]. As
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order on May 18, 2012, pursuant to
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising her of the importance of
Moving Defendants’ motion and of the need for her to file an adequate response. [Entry
#41]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if she failed to respond adequately, Moving
Defendants’ motion may be granted, thereby ending Plaintiff’s claims against them in this
case.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s
Roseboro order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion. As such, it appears to the
court that she does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on
the foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether she wishes to continue with
this case and to file a response to Moving Defendants’ motion by July 6, 2012. Plaintiff
is further advised that if she 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.

June 22, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2