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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?