Richardson v. Navient Solutions, Inc.

Filing 26

ORDER directing the plaintiff to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the defendant's 14 motion to dismiss within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. Pla intiff 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 8/11/2017. 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 Paige J. Gossett on 7/28/2017. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert Jerome Richardson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Navient Solutions, Inc.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 3:17-1337-CMC-PJG

ORDER

The plaintiff has filed this action, pro se, seeking relief pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.1 The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on June 20, 2017, pursuant
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 14.) 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 June 21,
2017, advising the plaintiff of the importance of a motion to dismiss and of the need for him to file
an adequate response. (ECF No. 15.) The plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to
respond adequately, the defendant’s motion may be granted, thereby ending his case.
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 this action.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the plaintiff shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with
this case and to file a response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss within fourteen (14) days from
the date of this order. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be
1

The defendant removed this action from the Richland County Magistrate’s Court.
Page 1 of 2

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
July 28, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2