Boyd v. Wilson et al

Filing 41

ORDER directing Plaintiff to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case against Wilson and Ariail and to file a response to 28 MOTION to Dismiss and 34 MOTION TO DISMISS by October 10, 2017. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 9/25/2017. (mwal)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Billy Roy Boyd, Plaintiff, vs. Alan Wilson; W. Walter Wilkins; Scott D. Robinson; and R. Mills Ariail, Jr., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No.: 6:17-1032-TLW-SVH ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights by Alan Wilson (“Wilson”), W. Walter Wilkins, Scott D. Robinson, and R. Mills Ariail, Jr. (“Ariail”). [ECF No. 1]. Wilson and Ariail filed separate motions to dismiss on July 18, 2017, and July 31, 2017, respectively. [ECF Nos. 28, 34]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered orders pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on July 18, 2017, and August 1, 2017, advising him of the importance of the motions and of the need for him to file adequate responses by August 18, 2017, and September 1, 2017, respectively. [ECF Nos. 28, 34]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the motions may be granted. On August 30, 2017, the court extended Plaintiff’s deadlines to respond to both motions until September 21, 2017. [ECF No. 39]. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motions of Wilson and Ariail. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motions and wishes to abandon this action against Wilson and Ariail.1 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case against Wilson and Ariail and to file a response to the motions to dismiss by October 10, 2017. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, the undersigned will recommend that his claims against Wilson and Ariail be dismissed 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. September 25, 2017 Columbia, South Carolina Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge 1 Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint on August 30, 2017. [ECF No. 38]. The motion to amend does not relieve Plaintiff of his responsibility to file responses to the motions. 2

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?