Eubanks v. Eubanks et al

Filing 32

ORDER directing Plaintiff to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to all pending motions to dismiss by February 12, 2018. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 1/29/2018. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Marvin Eubanks,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Holly Eubanks; South Carolina
Department of Social Services; and
Janice Chapman, individually and for
her actions as Lancaster County DSS
Director,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 0:17-54-TLW-SVH

ORDER

Marvin Eubanks (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, alleges state and federal causes of

action against Holly Eubanks (“Ms. Eubanks”), the South Carolina Department of Social
Services (“SCDSS”), and Janice Chapman (“Chapman”) (collectively “Defendants”).
[ECF No. 1-1].

SCDSS and Chapman filed a motion for summary judgment on

December 20, 2017, and Ms. Eubanks filed a motion for summary judgment on
December 21, 2017. [ECF Nos. 24, 29]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court
entered orders pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on
December 20, 2017, and December 21, 2017, respectively, advising him of the
importance of the motions and of the need for him to file adequate responses by January
22, 2018. [ECF Nos. 27, 30]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond
adequately, the motions may be granted.

Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s
Roseboro orders, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motions. As such, it appears to the
court that he does not oppose the motions and wishes to abandon this action. Based on
the foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with
this case and to file a response to all pending motions to dismiss by February 12, 2018.
Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, the undersigned will recommend
that this action be dismissed 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.

January 29, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2