York v. Johnson et al

Filing 39

ORDER directing Plaintiff to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendants' 33 MOTION for Summary Judgment by December 12, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 11/28/2017. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Herbert Demond York, #369211,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Ofc. Sheik Johnson; Warden Joseph
McFadden; Assist. Warden James
Blackwell; and Ms. Birch, Mental
Health Counselor,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:17-795-RMG-SVH

ORDER

Herbert Demond York (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action on March
24, 2017. [ECF No. 1]. On October 20, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. [ECF No. 33]. 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 20, 2017. [ECF No. 34]. 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
12, 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.

November 28, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2