Randolph v. Dozier et al
ORDER directing Plaintiff to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendants' 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment by April 28, 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 4/14/2017. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert Lee Randolph, Jr., #6210,
Vernetta Dozier and Harold Young,
C/A No.: 1:16-2953-TMC-SVH
Robert Lee Randolph, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 25, 2016. [ECF No. 1]. On March 10, 2017, Defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 31]. 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 April 10, 2017. [ECF No. 32]. Plaintiff was specifically advised
that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendants’ motion may be granted. Id.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s
Roseboro order, Plaintiff 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 and to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment by April 28,
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.
April 14, 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?