Blakely v. McCall et al

Filing 106

ORDER: No later than August 2, 2013, Plaintiff is to file a response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to respond adequately to Defendants' motion, the court may grant their Motion, which may end Plaintiff's case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 7/16/2013. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
James Gatewood Blakely,
a/k/a James G. Blakely,
a/k/a Jimmy G. Blakely;
Plaintiff,
v.
Michael McCall, D Bush, S Clayton, et al.,
Defendants.

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

C/A No. 5:12-cv-410-RMG-KDW

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 22, 2013, Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 64.

On April 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of

Time requesting additional time to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 77.
Plaintiff’s motion for extension was granted on April 3, 2013, and Plaintiff was given until May
29, 2013 to file a response. ECF No. 78. Nonetheless, Plaintiff has yet to file a response to
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Although Plaintiff has filed a Response in Opposition to
Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 90, on June 3, 2013, a Sur-Reply to Reply to Response
to Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 98, on June 17, 2013, and a Motion for Reconsideration, ECF
No. 100, these filings do not provide a substantive response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Accordingly, no later than August 2, 2013, Plaintiff is to file a response to Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss. Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to respond adequately to Defendants’ motion, the
court may grant their Motion, which may end Plaintiff’s case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 16, 2013
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

2