Porter v. Thomas

Filing 41

ORDER re 34 MOTION to dismiss. Petitioner has failed to respond to the motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that he wishes to abandon this action. It is ORDERED that Petitioner shall have through July 13, 2017, to file his response to the motion to dismiss. Petitioner is advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and for failure to comply with this Courts orders, pursuan t to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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 Jacquelyn D Austin on 6/23/2017. (abuc)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Gerald Porter,
Petitioner,
vs.
L. R. Thomas, Warden of Federal
Prison Camp Edgefield,
Respondent.

) Civil Action No.: 8:15-cv-03584-MGL-JDA
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc.
1.] On May 18, 2017, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. [Doc.
34.] On May 19, 2017, by Order of this Court, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d
309 (4th Cir. 1975), Petitioner was advised of the summary judgment/dismissal procedure
and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. [Doc. 38.] Despite this
explanation, Petitioner elected not to respond to the motion.
As Petitioner has failed to respond to the motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court
that he wishes to abandon this action. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner shall have through July 13, 2017, to file his
response to the motion to dismiss. Petitioner is advised that if he fails to respond, this
action will be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b),
and for failure to comply with this Court’s orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669

1

F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir.1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989). The
dismissal will be considered an adjudication on the merits, i.e., with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Jacquelyn D. Austin
United States Magistrate Judge
June 23, 2017
Greenville, South Carolina

2