Culp v. South Carolina Dept of Corrections et al

Filing 65

ORDER: Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendant Pate's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment 55 by January 27, 2014. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 1/9/2014. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Fredrick Y. Culp, a.k.a., Fredrick Yvonne )
Culp,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Dr. Alewine, Dr. Amonitti, Nurse Davis, )
Paul Drago, Yvonne McDonald, Michelle )
Ussemy, John Pate,
)
)
)
Defendant.

C/A No. 5:13-cv-01342-JFA-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 November 27, 2013,
2013, Defendant John Pate filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment.
ECF Nos. 54, 55. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order on December 2,
2013, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the
importance of such motions and of the need for him to file an adequate response. ECF No. 56
Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendant Pate’s
motions may be granted, thereby ending this case.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s
Roseboro order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to these motions. As such, it appears to the
court that he does not oppose these motions and wishes to abandon this action against
Defendant Pate. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he
wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendant Pate’s Motion to
Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment by January 27, 2014. Plaintiff is further

advised that if he 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.

January 9, 2014
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge