Linder v. Wilson et al
ORDER directing Plaintiff to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case against James and to file a response to James's 18 First MOTION to Dismiss by June 21, 2016. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, the undersigned will recommend James be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 6/7/2016. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Maverick Wilson; Angelena Brown;
Tonya James; and Mr. Sgt. Thomas,
C/A No.: 1:16-754-RMG-SVH
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging
violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant James
filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer on April 27, 2016. [ECF No. 18]. As
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on April 27, 2016, advising him of the
importance of the motion to dismiss and of the need for him to file an adequate response
by June 3, 2016. [ECF No. 19]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to
respond adequately, James’s motion may be granted.
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 against James and to file a response to James’s motion to dismiss by June 21, 2016.
Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, the undersigned will recommend
James be dismissed 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 7, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
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?