White v. Riley et al

Filing 39

ORDER: Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment [Entry #36]. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Plaintiff is direct ed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment by April 3, 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 3/20/2013. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
James W. White,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Tim Riley, Gary Lane, Jerry Alexander,
James Parish, Christine Thompson, and
DL Ferguson,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:12-2262-JMC-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. Defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment on February 11, 2013. [Entry #36]. As Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, the court entered an order on February 12, 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 #37].
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 April 3,
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.

March 20, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2