Garrett v. Aull et al
Filing
301
ORDER directing the plaintiff to advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with his claims against Defendants Arrojas and Ergen and to file a response to the defendants' 278 motion for summary judgment within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, the claims against Defendants Arrojas and Ergen will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Response to Motion due by 8/27/2020. 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 8/12/2020. (mmcd)
0:18-cv-01418-CMC-PJG
Date Filed 08/12/20
Entry Number 301
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Aull; Beckett, Jr.; T. Esterline; James Parrish; )
Travis H. Napier; Dr. Koon; Dr. T. Ergen; Dr. )
Arrojas; Dr. Compton; Pamela Derrick; Gina )
Williamson; Dr. Bryne,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
C/A No. 0:18-1418-CMC-PJG
ORDER
The plaintiff has filed this action, pro se, seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff, an inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections, alleges violations of his
constitutional rights by the named defendants. Defendants Arrojas and Ergen filed a motion for
summary judgment on June 23, 2020, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No.
278.) 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 June 24, 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. 279.) The plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the
defendants’ motion may be granted, thereby ending his case against them.
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 as to Defendants Arrojas and Ergen.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the plaintiff shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue
with his claims against Defendants Arrojas and Ergen and to file a response to the defendants’
Page 1 of 2
0:18-cv-01418-CMC-PJG
Date Filed 08/12/20
Entry Number 301
Page 2 of 2
motion for summary judgment within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. Plaintiff is
further advised that if he fails to respond, the claims against Defendants Arrojas and Ergen 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.
August 12, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina
__________________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 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?