El-Bey v. Clover Police Department et al
ORDER re 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ML Wilson, CD Dover, CJ Neeland, Clover Police Department. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion, as such, it appears to the court that she does not o ppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether she wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Clover Defendants' motion for summary judgment by September 23, 2014. 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 9/9/2014. (abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Dianne Michele Carter El-Bey,
a/k/a D’ori Me’ira El-Bey,
Clover Police Department; M.L.
Wilson; C.J. Neeland; C.D. Dover; C.S.
Salvage, Inc. d/b/a A+ Garage &
Towing; J. Corsey Bentley; Rachel
Anne Fiesta Fleming; Herman Melvin
Howell; York County Sheriff’s Office;
and Bruce M. Bryant,
C/A No.: 0:14-513-TLW-SVH
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging
violations of her constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Clover
Police Department, C.D. Dover, C.J. Neeland, and M.L. Wilson (“Clover Defendants”)
filed a motion for summary judgment on July 29, 2014. [Entry #32]. As Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d
309 (4th Cir. 1975) on July 30, 2014, advising her of the importance of the motion for
summary judgment and of the need for her to file an adequate response. [Entry #33].
Plaintiff was specifically advised that if she failed to respond adequately, Clover
Defendants’ motion may be granted.
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 Clover Defendants’ motion for summary judgment by
September 23, 2014. Plaintiff is further advised that if she fails to respond, this action
will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute.1 See Davis v.
Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 9, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
The undersigned notes that J. Corsey Bentley and C.S. Salvage, Inc. filed a motion to
dismiss and for summary judgment on September 8, 2014. [Entry #35]. Plaintiff’s
response to Entry #35 is due by October 14, 2014. [Entry #36]. However, if Plaintiff fails
to respond to this order, the undersigned will assume that she wishes to abandon her case
against all defendants and will recommend this matter be dismissed with prejudice
against all defendants.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?