Woods v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al

Filing 64

ORDER plaintiff is directed to advise the court as to whether she wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to 50 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution and for Sanctions by 1/20/2012; if plaintiff fails to respond, this action will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 1/9/2012. (ttil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Destiny A. Woods,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a Wachovia )
and f/k/a as Wachovia Financial
)
Services, Inc; and Earnestine Brown,
)
Melinda Price, Cateshia
)
Pinkney-Blanding and Cheryl Helms, in
)
their individual capacities,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

C/A No.: 3:10-3160-SVH

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action alleging violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Amended Act of 1990 (“ADA”). On November 15, 2011,
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution and for Sanctions. [Entry
#50]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order on November 16, 2011,
pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising her of the
importance of a motion to dismiss and of the need for her to file an adequate response.
[Entry #43]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if she failed to respond adequately,
Defendants’ motion may be granted, thereby ending this case.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s
Roseboro order, 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 Plaintiff shall advise the court as to whether she wishes to
continue with this case and to file a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss by January
20, 2012. Plaintiff is further advised that if she fails to respond, this action will 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 9, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2