Wilson v. National Bikers Roundup Inc. et al

Filing 41

ORDER directing Nunn to respond to Plaintiff's 38 MOTION for Summary Judgment by January 26, 2017. Nunn is further advised that if he fails to respond, the undersigned will recommend judgment be entered against him based on his failure to defend. 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 1/12/17. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
James A. Wilson,
Plaintiff,
vs.
National Bikers Roundup, Inc.;
Columbia SC Roundup Committee; and
Rozell Nunn, individually and d/b/a
R&R Enterprise,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 3:15-4862-MGL-SVH

ORDER

On December 8, 2015, James A. Wilson (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against
National Bikers Roundup, Inc.; Columbia SC Roundup Committee; and Rozell Nunn,
individually and d/b/a R&R Enterprise (“Nunn”) (collectively “Defendants”), alleging
copyright infringement. [ECF No. 1]. On December 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for
summary judgment against Nunn.1 [ECF No. 38]. On December 5, 2016, the court
entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975),
advising him of the importance of the motion and of the need for him to file an adequate
response by January 4, 2017. [ECF No. 39]. Nunn 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, Nunn failed to properly respond to the motion. As such, it appears to the

1

Plaintiff also filed a motion for default judgment against the corporate defendants which
have not made an appearance by counsel. [ECF No. 37].

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, Nunn 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 January 26, 2017. Nunn 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 12, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2