Sprinkle v. Robinson et al

Filing 58

ORDER: Plaintiff has failed to respond to defendants' motion. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he w ishes to continue with this case and file a response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment by May 8, 2013. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 4/24/2013. (abuc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Christian Robert Sprinkle, Plaintiff, vs. Sergeant Robinson; Warden Mackey; and Assistant Warden Joiner, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No.: 1:11-1321-JMC-SVH ORDER Plaintiff Christian Robert Sprinkle, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 13, 2013. [Entry #55]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order on March 14, 2013, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of a motion for summary judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response. [Entry #56]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendants’ motion may be granted. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order, 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. 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 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment by May 8, 2013. Plaintiff is further advised that if he 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. April 24, 2013 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?