James v. Compton et al
ORDER directing Plaintiff to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendants' 47 MOTION for Summary Judgment by 10/6/2017. 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 9/22/2017. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dr. Compton; Officer O’Neil; Officer
Herell; and Sgt. Matthews,
C/A No.: 1:17-30-RBH-SVH
Demetrice Jones (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 on January 3, 2017. [ECF No. 1]. On August 17, 2017, Dr. Compton,
Officer O’Neil, and Sgt. Matthews (“Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment.
[ECF No. 47]. 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 September 18, 2017.
[ECF No. 48]. 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 has failed to respond to Defendants’ 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
October 6, 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.
September 22, 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?