Dow v. Cothran
ORDER directing Petitioner to advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Respondent's 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment by March 10, 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 2/24/2017. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Willie E. Dow,
Richard A. Cothran, Warden of
Turbeville Correctional Institution,
C/A No.: 1:16-2721-HMH-SVH
Petitioner, proceeding in forma pauperis, brought this petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment
on January 11, 2017. [ECF No. 26]. As Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered
an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on January 11,
2017, advising him of the importance of a motion for summary judgment and of the need
for him to file an adequate response by February 13, 2017. [ECF No. 28]. Petitioner was
specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Respondent’s motion may be
granted, thereby ending this case.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s
Roseboro order, Petitioner 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, the undersigned orders Petitioner to advise the court as to whether he wishes
to continue with this case and to file a response to Respondent’s motion for summary
judgment by March 10, 2017. Petitioner 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 24, 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?