Lisenby v. Cohen

Filing 22

ORDER: Petitioner 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. 18 ) by January 27, 2017. Petitioner 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 12/28/2016. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr.,

Petitioner,
v.
Warden Levern Cohen,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 5:16-cv-02704-DCN-KDW

ORDER

Petitioner, Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr., is a state prisoner who filed this pro se Petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 2, 2016, Respondent filed a
Return and Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 17, 18. 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. 19. Petitioner 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 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. Based on the
foregoing, Petitioner 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 January 27,
2017. Petitioner 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 28, 2016
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge