Gilliard v. Stirling
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 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment by October 13, 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 9/29/2017. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Bryan P. Stirling,
C/A No.: 1:17-1029-TMC-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 August 23, 2017. [ECF No. 21]. 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
September 25, 2017. [ECF No. 22]. 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 October 13, 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.
September 29, 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?