Thompson v. McFadden

Filing 37

ORDER: Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with his case and to file a response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 28 by December 17, 2015. 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 12/3/2015. (mcot, ) Modified on 12/3/2015 to replace main document with corrected document at the direction of Chambers due to error in text (mcot, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Branson Jamal Thompson,

Petitioner,
v.
Warden McFadden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 5:15-cv-01568-TMC-KDW

ORDER

Petitioner, Branson Jamal Thompson, is a state prisoner who filed this pro se Petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 17, 2015,
Respondent filed a Return and Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 28, 29. Because
Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order 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 adequate responses. ECF No. 30. Petitioner was specifically advised that
if he failed to respond adequately, Respondent’s motion may be granted, thereby ending this
case. Petitioner was later granted an extension of time to respond to the Motion for Summary
Judgment, allowing him until November 23, 2015 to file a response. ECF No. 35.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s
Roseboro order Petitioner has failed to respond to the Motion. As such, it appears to the court
that he does not oppose the Motion and wishes to abandon this action against Defendants.
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’ Motion for Summary Judgment by
December 17, 2015. 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.

December 3, 2015
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge