Rodgers v. Glenn 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' 25 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment by August 25, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 8/11/2016. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Ricky M. Rodgers,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FNU Glenn, Health Services
Administrator; Ivan Negron,
M.D./R.M.D., Clinical Director, Health
Services Department; Albert Crosby,
R.N., Health Services Department;
Jeffery Eiben, EMT, Health Services
Department; D. Garcia, MLP/P.A.,
Health Services Department; FNU
Hood, Correctional Officer, Health
Services Department; and United States
of America,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.: 1:16-16-RMG-SVH

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 [ECF No 1]. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment on May 31, 2016. [ECF
No. 25]. 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 motions and of the need for him to file an adequate response by July 8, 2016. [ECF
No. 26]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately,
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).

Defendants’ motion may be granted. Id. On July 1, 2016, the undersigned extended
Plaintiff’s deadline, granting him until August 8, 2016, to respond to Defendants’ motion.
[ECF No. 31].
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s
Roseboro orders, 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 by August 25, 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.

August 11, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2