Samples v. Tamarchio et al

Filing 55

ORDER: Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment 47 . 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 dire cted to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment by October 29, 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 10/15/2013. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Forrest Kelly Samples,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Benjamin F. Lewis, Jr.; Amy R. Enloe;
Mathew L. Harper; Katherine Watson
Burgess; Daniel Cotter; Larry
Cartledge; Kay Humphries; and John
Tamarchio,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:13-657-MGL-SVH

Plainti
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 July 30, 2013. [Entry #47]. As Plaintiff is proceeding
pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th
Cir. 1975) on July 31, 2013, advising him of the importance of the motion for summary
judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response. [Entry #48]. 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 October 29,

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.

October 15, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2