Boyd v. Wilson et al

Filing 49

ORDER directing Plaintiff to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to all pending motions to dismiss by December 15, 2017. Response to Motion due by 12/15/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 12/1/2017. (mwal)

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 (“Wilkins”), Scott
D. Robinson (“Robinson”), and R. Mills Ariail, Jr. (“Ariail”). [ECF No. 1].

Robinson

and Wilkins filed separate motions to dismiss on October 14, 2017, and October 26,
2017, respectively. [ECF Nos. 43, 46]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered
orders pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on October 16,
2017, and October 26, 2017, advising him of the importance of the motions and of the
need for him to file adequate responses by November 16, 2017, and November 27, 2017,
respectively. [ECF Nos. 44, 47]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to
respond adequately, the motions may be granted.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s
Roseboro order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motions of Robinson and Wilkins.
As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motions and wishes to

abandon this action.1 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 all pending motions
to dismiss by December 15, 2017. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond,
the undersigned will recommend that this action 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.

December 1, 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. Additionally, Plaintiff previously failed to respond to the motions to dismiss
filed by Wilson and Ariail.
2