Barton v. Williams et al

Filing 28

ORDER re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jordan Williams, Ringold, Michael Marquardt, Wellington Williams, James Johnson. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion. As such, it appears to the co urt that he does not 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 April 16, 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 4/2/2014. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jerman O. Barton,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Jordan Williams, Lieutenant; James
Johnson, Sergeant; Michael Marquardt,
Sergeant; Wellington Williams, CPL;
and Ringold, Ofc.,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.: 1:13-2457-JFA-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 February 18, 2014. [Entry #25]. As Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d
309 (4th Cir. 1975) on February 19, 2014, advising him of the importance of the motion
for summary judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response. [Entry #26].
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 16,

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.

April 2, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2