Burris v. Charleston County Detention Center, et al

Filing 49

ORDER directing the Plaintiff to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the Defendants' 32 36 motions by June 8, 2016. 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 5/25/2016. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Shawn Justin Burris,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Charleston County Detention Center;
Carolina Center for Occupational
Health; Dr. Karen Huffman; and Dr.
Theodolph Jacobs,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.: 1:15-1801-TMC-SVH

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. Plaintiff sues
Charleston County Detention Center (“CCDC”) and Dr. Karen Huffman, Dr. Theodolph
Jacobs, and the Carolina Center for Occupational Health (collectively “Medical
Defendants”), alleging they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
[ECF No 1]. Medical Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 12, 2016,1 and
CCDC filed a motion for summary judgment on February 15, 2016. [ECF Nos. 32, 36].
As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered orders pursuant to Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of the motions
and of the need for him to file adequate responses. [ECF Nos. 33, 37]. Plaintiff was
specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, defendants’ motions may be
granted. Id. On March 16, 2016, and April 12, 2016, the undersigned extended Plaintiff’s
1

The undersigned issued an order advising the parties that the court intended to treat
Medical Defendants’ motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No.
34].

deadline, granting him until May 20, 2016, to respond to defendants’ motions. [ECF Nos.
41, 45].
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s
Roseboro orders, Plaintiff failed to properly respond to the motions. As such, it appears
to the court that he does not oppose the motions 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’ motions by June 8, 2016. 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.

May 25, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2