Parker v. Stevenson et al

Filing 110

ORDER: Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendants' Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment by February 29, 2016. Plaintiff is furthe r advised that if he fails to respond, the court will rule on the pending Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 106 , without considering a supplemental response from Plaintiff and replying only on Plaintiff's prior Response to Defendants' initial Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 71 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 2/3/2016. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Rodney Parker,

Plaintiff,
v.
Warden Stevenson, Major Sutton, Captain
Washington, Lt. Sylvia Jackson, Sgt.
Esterline, Sgt. JC Williams, Officer
Beckett, Officer McCoy, Officer Suarez,
Officer Dooley, Nurse K McCullough, and
Nurse Jane Doe,
Defendants.

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

C/A No. 5:13-cv-02795-TLW-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 December 7, 2015,
Defendants filed a Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 106. In an order
the court advised Plaintiff of the importance of such motions and of the need for him to file
adequate response pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). ECF No.
107. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the Defendants’
Motion may be granted, thereby ending this case.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s
Roseboro order, ECF No. 107, Plaintiff has failed to file a Response to Defendants’ Motion.
As such, it appears to the court that he does not wish to file a Supplemental Response. 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 Defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment
by February 29, 2016. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, the court will

rule on the pending Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 106, without considering a
supplemental response from Plaintiff and relying only on Plaintiff’s prior Response to
Defendants’ initial Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 71.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 3, 2016
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge