Boston v. Williamsburg County Jail

Filing 52

ORDER: Plaintiff is directed to file any supplemental response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by February 19, 2016. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, the court will rule on the pending Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 42 , without considering a supplemental response from Plaintiff and relying only on ECF No. 48 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 1/19/2016. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

James Thomas Boston,

Plaintiff,
v.
Nadia Pressley, Director of Williamsburg
County Jail,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 5:15-cv-01009-MGL-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 October 14, 2015,
Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 42. 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. 43. Plaintiff was
specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the Defendants’ Motion may be
granted, thereby ending this case. On October 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for an
extension of time to enable him to collect witness statements. ECF No. 46. While the Motion
was pending, Plaintiff filed a brief Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment on
October 26, 2015. ECF No. 48. On October 27, 2015, the undersigned granted Plaintiff’s
Motion, allowing him until December 18, 2015, to file a Supplemental Response in
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 49.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s
Roseboro order, ECF No. 43, and the court’s order granting Plaintiff’s motion for an
extension, ECF No. 49, Plaintiff has failed to file a Supplemental Response to the Motion. As

such, it appears to the court that he does not wish to file a Supplemental Response and wishes
to rest on his initial Response, ECF No. 48. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to
file any supplemental response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment by February
19, 2016. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, the court will rule on the
pending Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 42, without considering a supplemental
response from Plaintiff and relying only on ECF No. 48.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 19, 2016
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge