Hills v. Aubrey

Filing 56

ORDER re 51 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by David W Dunlap, Derrick Mungo, Aubrey Rennick, Karen Henderson. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have through August 17, 2017, in which to file his response to the motion for summary judgment [Doc. 51]. Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and for failure to comply with this Courts orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) 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 7/28/2017. (abuc)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
LeArthur Hills,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Lt. Aubrey Rennick, Lt. Karen
Henderson, Sgt. Derrick Mungo,
Warden David W. Dunlap,
Defendants.

) C/A No. 8:16-cv-02731-TLW-JDA
)
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June
19, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 51.] By Order of this
Court on June 20, 2017, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975),
Plaintiff was advised of the summary judgment/dismissal procedure and the possible
consequences if he failed to respond adequately. [Doc. 52.] Despite these explanations,
Plaintiff elected not to respond to the motion.
As Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment, it appears to
the Court that he wishes to abandon this action. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have through August 17, 2017, in which to file
his response to the motion for summary judgment [Doc. 51]. Plaintiff is advised that if he
fails to respond, this action will be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and for failure to comply with this Court’s orders,
pursuant to Rule 41(b) and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669

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
July 28, 2017
Greenville, South Carolina

2