Patterson v. SCANA Corporation et al

Filing 27

ORDER re 22 MOTION to Dismiss filed by SCANA Corporation. 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. Ba sed on the foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment by June 18, 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 6/4/2014. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Corey A. Patterson Sr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SCANA Corporation, d/b/a SCANA
Energy Georgia (SEGA) Aiken
Contact Center,
Defendant.

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

C/A No.: 1:14-717-JMC-SVH

ORDER

On February 27, 2014, Corey A. Patterson Sr. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,
filed a complaint against SCANA Corporation (“Defendant”), alleging employment
discrimination and retaliation. [Entry #1]. On April 23, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to
dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. [Entry #22]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court
entered an order on April 24, 2014, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th
Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of Defendant’s motion and of the need for
him to file an adequate response. [Entry #24]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he
failed to respond adequately, Defendant’s motion may be granted, thereby ending
Plaintiff’s case.
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 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment by June 18,
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.

June 4, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2