Puckett v. Chester County Sheriff's Office
Filing
27
ORDER directing Plaintiff to advise the court whether she wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendant's 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment by June 1, 2016. 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 5/18/2016. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Shannon D. Puckett,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Chester County Sheriff’s Office,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No.: 0:15-1392-JMC-SVH
ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging she
was wrongfully terminated. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on April 8,
2016. [ECF No. 24]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant
to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising her of the importance of
the motion and of the need for her to file an adequate response. [ECF No. 25]. Plaintiff
was specifically advised that if she failed to respond adequately, Defendant’s motion may
be granted. Id.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s
Roseboro order, Plaintiff failed to properly 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 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment by
June 1, 2016. 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.
May 18, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
2
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?