McCormick et al v. Kershaw County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 41

ORDER directing the plaintiffs to advise the court as to whether they wish to continue with this case within seven (7) days from the date of this order. If plaintiffs intends to seek leave for an extension in which to file a r esponse in opposition to the pending 38 motion for summary judgement, they must establish the requisite standards for such an untimely filing in accordance with the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules of this Court. (Status Report due 7/20/2021.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett on 7/13/2021. (mmcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Lamitthia McCormick; D’Mario K.
Anderson; Loretta McCormick, individually
and as a parent and legal guardian of D.K, a
minor;
Plaintiffs,
v.
Kershaw County Sheriff’s Office; Lee Doan,
Sheriff of Kershaw County; Deputy David
Jordan; Deputy Chris Boykin; 911 Operator
Brenda Johnson; Responding Unit 202, aka
John Doe,
Defendants.

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

C/A No. 3:19-2578-MGL-PJG

ORDER

The plaintiffs, who are represented by counsel, filed this civil action against the named
defendants. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on June 25, 2021, pursuant to
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 38.) As of the date of this order, the plaintiffs
have failed to respond to the defendants’ motion in accordance with Local Civil Rule 7.06 (D.S.C.).
As such, it appears to the court that they do not oppose this motion and wish to abandon this action.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall advise the court as to whether they wish to continue
with this case within seven (7) days from the date of this order. The plaintiffs are further advised
that if they fail to respond, this action may be decided on the record presented in support of the
defendants’ motion, see Local Civil Rule 7.06 (D.S.C.), or may 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 further
Page 1 of 2

ORDERED that if the plaintiffs intend to seek leave for an extension in which to file a
response in opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment, they must establish the
requisite standards for such an untimely filing in accordance with the applicable Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules of this court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 13, 2021
Columbia, South Carolina

__________________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 2 of 2