Jenkins v. Florence County Detention Center et al

Filing 38

ORDER: Plaintiff 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 (ECF No. 32 ) by March 30, 2016. 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 3/16/2016. (mcot, )

Download PDF
  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Davon William Jenkins, Plaintiff, v. Officer Palmer, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No. 5:15-cv-03398-HMH-KDW ORDER Plaintiff, Davon William Jenkins, is a local detainee who filed this pro se action alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. An Amended Complaint was filed on October 14, 2015. ECF No. 17; see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271 (1988) (pro se prisoner’s pleading is deemed “filed” at moment of delivery to prison authorities for forwarding to district court). On January 21, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 32. Because Plaintiff 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. 35. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Respondent’s motion 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 the Motion and the time for his response has now passed. As such, it appears to the court that Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion and wishes to abandon this action. 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 Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment by March 30, 2016. 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. March 16, 2016 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?