West v. Stirling et al

Filing 49

ORDER: Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 28 , 29 , 39 ) by October 21, 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 10/6/2016. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Christopher West,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Director Bryan Stirling; Dennis
)
Patterson; Ruby Brockenberry; Willie
)
Eagleton; Ann Hallman; Amy Smith;
)
Yolanda Miller; Annie Sellers; Damon
)
Clark; Thomas Ocean; James Baskins;
)
Lucius Miles; Charles West; Freddie
)
Maddox; Officer Lee; Benjamin Stubs; and )
Ethel Redfearn-Miller,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C/A No: 5:16-cv-00984-DCN-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 June 27, 2016, Defendants other
than Baskins and Lee filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. ECF No. 29. Also on that date, Defendants Baskins and Lee filed a Rule 12 Motion to
Dismiss, alleging they had not been properly served. ECF No. 28. On July 26, 2016, defense
counsel withdrew the Motion to Dismiss based on allegedly improper service as to Baskins, ECF
No. 38, advising the June 27, 2016 Motion to Dismiss based on improper service, ECF No. 29,
remained pending as to Defendant Lee only. Also on July 26, 2016, Baskins filed a Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12, making several non-service-based arguments. ECF No. 39.
Upon the filing of these pending motions to dismiss—ECF No. 28 (Lee); ECF No. 29 (all
Defendants other than Baskins and Lee); and ECF No. 39 (Baskins)—the court issued orders

1

advising Plaintiff of the importance of such motions and of the need for him to file adequate
responses pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). ECF No. 33. Plaintiff
was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendants’ Motions may be
granted, thereby ending this case. In a Motion filed on August 3, 2016, Plaintiff requested an
additional 60 days within which to respond to the pending dispositive motions. ECF No. 44. The
court granted Plaintiff’s request, advising him his responses to all of these Motions were due no
later than September 30, 2016. ECF No. 45.
The extended deadline by which Plaintiff was to respond to these motions has passed,
and notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro
Orders, ECF Nos. 30, 41, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants’ Motions. As such, it
appears to the court that Plaintiff does not oppose these Motions and wishes to abandon this
action against all 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’ Motions to
Dismiss by October 21, 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.

October 6, 2016
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

2