Grayson v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

Filing 22

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 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment by February 6, 2018. Because Petitioner has alrea dy been granted generous extensions, no further extensions will be granted. 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 1/23/2018. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Antwan Dominique Grayson,
Petitioner,
vs.
Warden of Broad River,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:17-1879-JFA-SVH

ORDER

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 September 13, 2017. [ECF No. 9]. 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
October 16, 2017. [ECF No. 11]. Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to
respond adequately, Respondent’s motion may be granted, thereby ending this case. Id.
On October 12, 2017, November 17, 2017, and December 20, 2017, the undersigned
extended Petitioner’s deadline, granting him until January 16, 2018, to respond to
Respondent’s motion. [ECF Nos. 14, 17, 20].
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 February 6, 2018. Because
Petitioner has already been granted generous extensions, no further extensions will be
granted. 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.

January 23, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2