Herron v. Horry County South Carolina, 4:11-cv-01377

Herron, pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in the District of South Carolina on June 6, 2011, naming Horry County and numerous individuals as defendants.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on May 3, 2012.
Herron filed a notice of change of address and moved to stay the case for 150 days due to relocation to the Kirkland R&E Center and limited access to materials.
The court granted a partial stay, requiring Herron to respond to the summary judgment motion by August 1, 2012 or face dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Herron did not file a response by the deadline, and no responses were received after the notice and order.
The magistrate judge concluded Herron abandoned the lawsuit and recommended dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b), with other pending motions deemed MOOT.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute is warranted	Herron did not respond; no active pursuit of prosecution	Delay and nonresponse justify dismissal under Rule 41(b)	Dismissal with prejudice recommended

Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and/or comply with court orders)
Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919 (4th Cir. 1982) (requirement to consider four-factor test for Rule 41(b) dismissal)
Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1978) (four-factor analysis for Rule 41(b) dismissal)
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) (warning of summary judgment procedures to pro se litigants)