Holcomb v. Riley et al

Filing 31

ORDER directing Petitioner to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendants' 28 MOTION TO DISMISS by March 17, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 3/3/2017. (mwal)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Dean A. Holcolmb, Plaintiff, vs. Tim Riley; Andrea Thompson; Lieutenant Story; Lieutenant Martin; Ms. Albert; Annie Rumler; Major Jackson; Officer Spigner; Ms. Marshal; and D. Utley, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No.: 1:16-3487-MGL-SVH ORDER Dean A. Holcolmb (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 25, 2016. [ECF No. 1]. On January 26, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. [ECF No. 28]. 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 27, 2017. [ECF No. 29]. 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 to dismiss by March 17, 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. March 3, 2017 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?