Heggins v. US Foods, Inc.

Filing 34

ORDER dismissing case with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 5/26/2017. (mwal)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Dregory C. Heggins, Plaintiff, vs. US Foods, Inc., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No.: 0:16-2786-SVH ORDER Dregory C. Heggins (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this employment case on July 7, 2016, and it was removed to this court on August 10, 2016. [ECF No. 1]. On April 4, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. [ECF No. 29]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of the motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response by May 5, 2017. [ECF No. 30]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he 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 respond to the motion. On May 8, 2017, the court ordered Plaintiff to advise whether he wished to continue with the case by May 22, 2017. [ECF No. 32]. Plaintiff has filed no response. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, this action is dismissed 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 26, 2017 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?