Inman v. Sterling et al

Filing 33

ORDER directing Plaintiff to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendants' 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment by September 20, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 9/6/2016. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Quinton Inman,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Director Bryan P. Sterling and Corporal
Harold Campbell,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:15-4962-JMC-SVH

ORDER

Quinton Inman (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on July 27, 2016. [ECF No. 30]. As
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of the motion
and of the need for him to file an adequate response by September 1, 2016. [ECF No. 31].
Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendants’
motion may be granted. Id.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s
Roseboro order, Plaintiff failed to properly 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
September 20, 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.

September 6, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2