Breaker v. South Carolina, State of et al
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 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment by August 15, 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 8/1/2017. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
D’Andrik Lamar Breaker, #330260,
C/A No.: 1:17-406-PMD-SVH
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brought this action requesting a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment
on June 21, 2017. [ECF No. 25]. As Petitioner 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 a motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response by July
24, 2017. [ECF No. 26]. 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. 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 August 15, 2017. Petitioner
is further advised that if he fails to respond, the undersigned will recommend this action
be dismissed 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.
August 1, 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?