Garrett v. Binkley et al

Filing 271

ORDER directing the plaintiff to advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment within fourteen (14) days from the date of this or der. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, the claims against Defendants Williams and Cross will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Response to Motion due due by 11/6/2020. 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 Paige J. Gossett on 10/23/2020. (mmcd)

0:18-cv-01416-CMC-PJG

Date Filed 10/23/20

Entry Number 271

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Chad Binkley; Charles M. Williams, Jr.;
Kevin D. Cross,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 0:18-1416-CMC-PJG

ORDER

The plaintiff, Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., a self-represented state inmate, has filed this action
seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights by the
named defendants. Defendants Williams and Cross filed a motion for summary judgment on
September 11, 2020, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 263.) 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 September 14, 2020, 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.
265.) The plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the defendants’
motion may be granted, thereby ending his case as to the claims against those defendants.
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 his claims against Defendants Williams and Cross.
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 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,
Page 1 of 2

0:18-cv-01416-CMC-PJG

Date Filed 10/23/20

Entry Number 271

Page 2 of 2

the claims against Defendants Williams and Cross 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.

October 23, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

__________________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 2 of 2