Bellamy et al v. Countrywide Home Loans et al

Filing 16

ORDER: Plaintiffs are directed to advise the court whether they wish to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 8 by February 28, 2014. Plaintiffs are further advised that if they fail to respond, the court will dismiss their case against Defendants for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 2/6/2014. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Billy J. Bellamy and Wendy J. Bellamy,

)
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs.
)
)
)
Countrywide Home Loans; Bank of
America, NA; US Bank as Trustee for JP
)
)
Morgan Trust 2006-S4, and any other
parties known or unknown at this time, et
)
al.,
)
)
Defendants. )

C/A No. 4:13-3575-RBH-KDW

ORDER

Plaintiffs, appearing pro se, filed this action in the Horry County Court of Common
Pleas, bringing what is titled a “Complaint to Quiet Title Action.” Defendants removed the
matter to this court on December 23, 2013. See ECF No. 1. On December 27, 2013,
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, claiming Plaintiffs’ Complaint did not present a claim on which relief could be
granted. ECF No. 8.
As Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, the court entered an order on December 30, 2013,
pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiffs of the
importance of a motion to dismiss and of the need for them to file an adequate response. ECF
No. 12. Plaintiffs were informed that their response was due by February 3, 2014. Plaintiffs
were specifically advised that if they failed to respond adequately, Defendants’ Motion may
be granted, thereby ending their case.

Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s
Roseboro Order, Plaintiffs have failed to respond to the Motion. As such, it appears to the
court that Plaintiffs do not oppose the Motion and wish to abandon her action against
Defendants. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs are directed to advise the court whether they
wish to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss by
February 28, 2014. Plaintiffs are further advised that if they fail to respond, the court will
dismiss their case against Defendants for failure to prosecute. See Davis, 588 F.2d at 70; Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b).
The Clerk of Court is instructed to send this Order to Plaintiffs at their last-known
address by way of both regular and certified U.S. Mail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 6, 2014
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

2