Elia v. Wheelz LLC
ORDER directing Plaintiff to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendant's 28 motion to dismiss by February 24, 2017. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Response to Motion due by 2/24/2017.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 2/10/2017. (bgoo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Gerald P. Elia,
C/A No.: 3:15-4901-MGL-SVH
Gerald P. Elia (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this employment case on
December 10, 2015. [ECF No. 1]. On January 5, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to
dismiss for failure to prosecute. [ECF No. 28]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, 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 February 6, 2017. [ECF No. 29]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he
failed to respond adequately, Defendant’s motion may be granted. Id.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s
Roseboro order, Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion. As such, it appears to the court
that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the
foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this
case and to file a response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss by February 24, 2017.
Plaintiff is further advised that if he 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.
February 10, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
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?