Chestnut v. Thompson et al

Filing 38

ORDER re 33 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Rory Thompson, T McGirt, LeRoy Jones, United States of America. Plaintiff has failed to properly respond to the motion. Plaintiff is instructed to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment by March 19, 2014. Plaintiff is advised that no further extensions will be granted. Plaintiff is further advised 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 3/5/2014. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Raymond Edward Chestnut,
Plaintiff,
vs.
United States of America; Rory
Thompson, Correctional Officer; T.
McGirt, Correctional Officer; and
LeRoy Jones, individually and in their
official capacities,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.: 1:13-1870-RBH-SVH

Plainti
ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging
violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971).1 Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment on November 8, 2013. [Entry #33].
As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) on November 12, 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.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s

1

Bivens is the case establishing, as a general proposition, that victims of a constitutional
violation perpetuated by a federal actor may sue the offender for damages in federal court
despite the absence of explicit statutory authorization for such suits.” Carlson v. Green,
446 U.S. 14, 18 (1980); see also Holly v. Scott, 434 F.3d 287, 289 (4th Cir. 2006).

Roseboro order, Plaintiff has failed to properly respond to the motion. On November 18,
2013, and December 19, 2013, the court received letters from Plaintiff indicating that he
had inadequate paper and research to respond to Defendants’ motion. [Entry #36, #37].
The court takes judicial notice that SCDC policy provides that indigent inmates
receive an allotment of envelopes and paper each month. See Edmond v. Ozmint, C/A
1:08-3288-GRA-SVH, 2010 WL 3399157 (D.S.C. July 26, 2010). To the extent that
Plaintiff chooses to utilize his allotment of paper and envelopes for purposes other than
substantively responding to the arguments in Defendants’ motion, the court will rule on
the record accordingly. Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment almost four
months ago. Plaintiff is instructed to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment by March 19, 2014. Plaintiff is further advised that no further extensions will
be granted. 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 5, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2