Dixon v. Wilks et al

Filing 49

ORDER Plaintiff has failed to respond to defendant's motion for summary judgment 45 . As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, Plainti ff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment by July 6, 2012. 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 6/22/2012. (abuc) Modified to edit text on 6/22/2012 (abuc).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Robert James Dixon,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Diane Wilks,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:11-2378-CMC-SVH

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging
violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant filed a
motion for summary judgment on May 16, 2012. [Entry #45]. As Plaintiff is proceeding
pro se, the court entered an order on May 16, 2012, 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 #46]. Plaintiff was
specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendant’s motion may be
granted, thereby ending this case.
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 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment by July 6, 2012.
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.

June 22, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2