Rouse v. Savannah River Remediation, LLC
Filing
16
ORDER directing Plaintiff to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendant's 11 MOTION TO DISMISS by July 28, 2017. Response to Motion due by 7/28/2017. 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 7/14/2017. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Jimmy L. Rouse,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Savannah River Remediation, LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No.: 1:17-1059-JMC-SVH
ORDER
Jimmy L. Rouse (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this employment case on
April 24, 2017. [ECF No. 1]. On June 8, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. [ECF
No. 11]. 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 July 10, 2017. [ECF
No. 14]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately,
Defendant’s 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 Defendant’s motion to dismiss by July 28, 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.
July 14, 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?