York v. Cartledge et al

Filing 64

ORDER directing Plaintiff to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendants' 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment by December 15, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 12/1/2017. (mwal)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Herbert Demond York, Plaintiff, vs. Warden Larry Cartledge, Lieutenant A. Young, and Director Michael McCall, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No.: 1:16-3971-RMG-SVH ORDER Herbert Demond York (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action on December 21, 2016. [ECF No. 1]. On October 23, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 57]. 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 November 27, 2017. [ECF No. 58]. 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 December 15, 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. December 1, 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?