A'Giza v. Postmaster General

Filing 77

ORDER directing the plaintiff to advise the court as to whether she wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the defendant's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment within fourtee n days from the date of this order, re 72 MOTION to Dismiss or in the Alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Postmaster General, ( Response to Motion due by 1/5/2012). Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J Gossett on 12/22/2011. (jpet, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Dalila A’Giza,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
John Potter, Postmaster General,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 3:10-117-MBS-PJG

ORDER

The plaintiff, Dalila A’Giza, who is self-represented, filed this employment discrimination
action against her former employer, John E. Potter. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, in
the alternative, for summary judgment on November 10, 2011, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (ECF No. 72.) As the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant
to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) on November 14, 2011, advising the plaintiff
of the importance of a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment and of the need
for her to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 73.) The plaintiff was specifically advised that if she
failed to respond adequately, the defendant’s motion may be granted, thereby ending her case.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order,
the plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion. As such, it appears to the court that she does not
oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the plaintiff shall advise the court as to whether she wishes to continue with
this case and to file a response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for

Page 1 of 2

summary judgment within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. Plaintiff is further advised
that if she 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.

____________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
December 22, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2