Dominick v. Cartledge

Filing 49

ORDER: Petitioner is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment 33 by April 14, 2014. Petitioner is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action against Respondent will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 3/27/2014. (mcot, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Charles M. Dominick, Petitioner, v. Leroy Cartledge, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No. 5:13-cv-02636-JFA-KDW ORDER Petitioner, proceeding pro se brought this action seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on January 22, 2014. ECF No. 33. As Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order on January 23, 2014, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Petitioner of the importance of a motion for summary judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response. ECF No. 36. Petitioner was informed that his response was due by February 27 2014, and was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Respondent’s motion may be granted, thereby ending his case. On February 18, 2014, the court granted Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to respond to Respondent’s summary judgment motion. ECF No. 43. Petitioner was advised that his response to Respondent’s summary judgment motion was due by March 20, 2014. Id. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order, Petitioner has failed to respond. As such, it appears to the court that Petitioner does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon his action against Respondent. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment by April 14, 2014. Petitioner is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action against Respondent 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. March 27, 2014 Florence, South Carolina Kaymani D. West United States Magistrate Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?