Tate v. State et al

Filing 57

ORDER directing Plaintiff to advise the court whether she wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendant's 53 MOTION to Dismiss by June 7, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 5/24/2018. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Phyllis Tate,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Officer Colbert,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 3:16-2715-MBS-SVH

ORDER

Phyllis Tate (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights case
on August 3, 2016. [ECF No. 1]. On April 20, 2018, Defendant filed a motion
to dismiss for failure to prosecute. [ECF No. 53]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro
se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309
(4th Cir. 1975), advising her of the importance of the motion and of the need
for her to file an adequate response by May 21, 2018. [ECF No. 55]. Plaintiff
was specifically advised that if she 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 she does not oppose the motion and wishes to
abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to advise the
court whether she wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to
Defendant’s motion to dismiss by June 7, 2018. Plaintiff is further advised

that if she 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.

May 24, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2