Newsome v. Sterling
ORDER directing Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant's 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment by March 13, 2017. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 2/27/2017. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Bryan P. Sterling, Commissioner of the
South Carolina Department of
C/A No.: 1:16-1607-TLW-SVH
Buddy Newsome (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights.
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on January 20, 2017. [ECF No. 27]. 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 February 23, 2017. [ECF No. 28].
Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendant’s
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 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment by March
13, 2017. 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.
February 27, 2017
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?