Davis v. Byars et al

Filing 42

ORDER re 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Larry Cartledge, William R Byars, Jr, Rhonda Abston, Florence Mauney. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion. As such, it appears to the court that he does n ot oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. 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 March 6, 2014. 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 2/20/2014. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Tamel Davis,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
William R. Byars, Jr., Director of South )
Carolina Department of Corrections
)
(SCDC); Larry Cartledge, Warden at
)
Perry Correctional Institution (PCI);
)
Florence Mauney, Associate Warden at )
PCI; Rhonda Abston, Captain of SMU
)
at PCI,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

C/A No.: 1:13-738-DCN-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 September 20, 2013. [Entry #32]. As Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d
309 (4th Cir. 1975) on September 23, 2013, advising him of the importance of the motion
for summary judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response. [Entry #33].
Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendants’
motion may be granted. Plaintiff requested, and the court granted, two extensions of time
for Plaintiff to respond to the summary judgment motion, Plaintiff’s response was
originally due October 28, 2013, but the court permitted Plaintiff until January 2, 2014, to
file a response to the summary judgment motion.
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 March 6,
2014. 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.

February 20, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2