Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Wateree Construction Company Inc

Filing 49

ORDER directing Zeigler to advise the court whether he opposes Plaintiff's 42 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment and to file a response to Plaintiff's motion by February 1, 2017. Zeigler is further advised that if he fails to respond, the undersigned will recommend judgment be entered against him based on his failure to defend. Response to Motion due by 2/1/2017. 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 1/18/2017. (mwal)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Plaintiff, vs. Wateree Construction Company, Inc; and Derek S. Zeigler, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No.: 3:15-240-TLW-SVH ORDER On January 16, 2015, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Wateree Construction Company, Inc. and Derek S. Zeigler (“Zeigler”) (collectively “Defendants”). [ECF No. 1]. On November 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment against Defendants. [ECF No. 42]. On November 14, 2016, this matter was referred to the undersigned. The undersigned entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on November 14, 2016, advising Zeigler of the importance of the motion for summary judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response by December 19, 2016. [ECF No. 46]. Zeigler was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Plaintiff’s motion may be granted. Id. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order, Zeigler failed to properly respond to the motion. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and does not oppose an entry of judgment against him in this action. Based on the foregoing, Zeigler is directed to advise the court whether he opposes Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion by February 1, 2017. Zeigler is further advised that if he fails to respond, the undersigned will recommend judgment be entered against him based on his failure to defend. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. January 18, 2017 Columbia, South Carolina Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?