Pauling v. Marlboro County Sheriffs Office

4:11-cv-02868 | D.S.C. | Mar 6, 2013

4:11-cv-02868-RBH Date Filed 03/06/13 Entry Number 56 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA James Albert Pauling, ) C/A No. 4:11-2868-RBH-KDW ) )

Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) )

Marlboro County Sheriffs Office; Chief ) Deputy Lemon; Training Officer Deputy ) Ackers, )

) Defendants. ) ) Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , brought this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on October 30, 2012. ECF No. 47. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order on October 30, 2012, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison , 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of a motion for summary judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response. ECF No. 48. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendants’ motion may be granted, thereby ending this case.

Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. 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 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment by March 25,

4:11-cv-02868-RBH Date Filed 03/06/13 Entry Number 56 Page 2 of 2 2013. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams , 588 F.2d 69" date_filed="1978-11-30" court="4th Cir." case_name="Stanley Davis v. Ralph Williams">588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 6, 2013 Kaymani D. West Florence, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge