Barker v. Cartledge
Filing
28
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 by August 10, 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 7/11/2017. (mcot, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Montez Barker,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden Cartledge,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No. 5:16-cv-03934-MGL-KDW
ORDER
Petitioner, Montez Barker, is a state prisoner who filed this pro se Petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 7, 2017, 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. However, Petitioner filed two requests for
extensions, ECF Nos. 21, 24, which the court granted, ECF Nos. 22, 25. In the most recent
order, Petitioner was granted until June 17, 2017, to respond. ECF No. 25. However,
Petitioner filed no Response. 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 August 10, 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.
July 11, 2017
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?