Hubbard v. Spartanburg County Detention Facility et al

Filing 75

ORDER - The Plaintiff shall advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the defendant's motion to dismiss 67 within fourteen (14) days from 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. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J Gossett on 6/17/2015. (gmil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert Bruce Trey Hubbard,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
D-3 Deputy T. Hadden; SGT W. Church; SGT )
K. Ashley; 1st SGT L. Pilgrim; Cpl. M.
)
Higgins; S. Bianco, Medical Doctor; Lt.
)
Hayes, Bravo Platoon Shift Lietenant; Cpl. L. )
Blackwell; and Chaplain Ken Apple,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 0:14-2910-BHH-PJG

ORDER

The plaintiff has filed this action, pro se, seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff, a former inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections, alleges violations of
his constitutional rights by the named defendants. Defendant Bianco filed a motion to dismiss on
April 30, 2015, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 67.) 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 May 1, 2015, advising the plaintiff of the importance of a motion to dismiss and of the
need for him to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 68.) The plaintiff was specifically advised that
if he failed to respond adequately, the defendant’s 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.

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 and to file a response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss within fourteen (14) days from
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
June 17, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2