Hunt v. West Columbia Police Dept et al

Filing 67

ORDER - Plaintiff shall advise the court whether he wishes to continue with his claims against Defendant Myers and to file a response to Defendant Myers's motion for summary judgment 62 within fourteen (14) days from th e date of this order. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, his claims against Defendant Myers will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J Gossett on 3/16/2015. (gmil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Clyde Hunt,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
West Columbia Police Dept.; Donald Myers, )
Solicitor; Dennis Tyndall, Chief of Police; Joe )
Putney, Police Officer; Doug Hook, Police
)
Officer,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 3:14-70-MGL-PJG

ORDER

The plaintiff has filed this action, pro se, seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Defendant Myers filed a motion for summary judgment on January 30, 2015. (ECF No. 62.) 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 February 2, 2015, advising the plaintiff of the importance of a motion for
summary judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 63.) The
plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the defendant’s motion may
be granted, thereby ending his case against Defendant Myers.
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 he does not
oppose the motion and wishes to abandon his claims against Defendant Myers.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the plaintiff shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with
his claims against Defendant Myers and to file a response to Defendant Myers’s motion for summary

Page 1 of 2

judgment within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. Plaintiff is further advised that if he
fails to respond, his claims against Defendant Myers 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
March 16, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2