Bright v. White et al

Filing 70

ORDER: Plaintiff shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue withthis case and to file a response to the defendants' motion to dismiss 59 within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. Plaintiff i s further advised that if he fails to respond, this action may be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Response to Motion due by 10/17/2013.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J Gossett on 10/3/2013. (abuc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Glenn D. Bright,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Chris White; Ken Pollet; and P. Kaufmann,
)
Inc.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 0:12-2259-CMC-PJG

ORDER

The plaintiff, who is self-represented, has filed this action alleging violations of his
constitutional rights by the named defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August
23, 2013, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 59.) 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 August 26, 2013, advising the plaintiff of the importance of a motion to dismiss and
of the need for him to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 61.) The plaintiff was specifically
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

Page 1 of 2

the date of this order. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action may 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
October 3, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2