Wiggins v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

Filing 21

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 15 First MOTION for Summary Judgment by December 5, 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 11/21/2017. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Barney Joe Wiggins,
Petitioner,
vs.
Warden of Kirkland Correctional
Institution,
Respondent.

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

C/A No.: 1:17-1086-RBH-SVH

ORDER

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brought this action requesting a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment
on October 16, 2017. [ECF No. 15]. 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
November 16, 2017. [ECF No. 15]. 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.1 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

1

Plaintiff submitted a letter filed October 16, 2017 [ECF No. 18], indicating he had not
received any information about this case. The court noted that Plaintiff had not updated
his address, but sent Plaintiff a copy of Respondent’s motion and the Roseboro order to
the address on the envelope of Plaintiff’s letter. [ECF No. 19].

a response to Respondent’s motion for summary judgment by December 5, 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.

November 21, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2