Haway v. Evans et al

Filing 62

ORDER re 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Mary Hammond. 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 against these defendants. Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with this case against these defendants and to file a response to the defendants' motion for summaryjudgment wi thin fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, the claims against these defendants will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett on 12/19/2014. (gmil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Tyler Sebastian Haway,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Ralph Evans; Rick Clark; Mary Hammond;
)
Drew Sisco; Katherine Vissage; Pickens
)
County Law Enforcement Center
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 0:14-534-TMC-PJG

ORDER

The plaintiff has filed this action, pro se, seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff, an inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections, alleges violations of his
constitutional rights by the named defendants. Defendants Evans, Clark, Sisco, Vissage, and the
Pickens County Law Enforcement Center filed a motion for summary judgment on November 10,
2014, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 50.) 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 November 12, 2014, advising the plaintiff of the importance of a motion for summary judgment
and of the need for him to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 53.) The plaintiff was specifically
advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the defendants’ motion may be granted, thereby
ending his case against them.
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 against these defendants.

Page 1 of 2

Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the plaintiff shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with
this case against these defendants and to file a response to the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. Plaintiff is further advised that if he
fails to respond, the claims against these defendants 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
December 19, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2