United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
MICHAEL L. SPIVEY, Petitioner,
KENNY ATKINSON, Respondent.
THOMAS E. ROGERS, III, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner, Spivey (hereinafter "Petitioner"), is currently incarcerated at the Edgefield Federal Correctional Institution. Petitioner appearing pro se, filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on January 10, 2014. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment on April 9, 2014, along with a return, supporting memorandum and exhibits. The undersigned issued an order filed April 10, 2014, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison , 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Petitioner of the motion for summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. (Doc. #20). No response has been filed by Petitioner to Respondent's motion for summary judgment.
RULE 41(B) DISMISSAL
A complaint may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with orders of the court. Ballard v. Carlson , 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1084 (1990), and Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez , 669 F.2d 919 (4th Cir. 1982). In considering whether to dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b), the court is required to consider four factors:
(1) the degree of plaintiff's responsibility in failing to respond;
(2) the amount of prejudice to the defendant;
(3) the history of the plaintiff in proceeding in a dilatory manner; and,
(4) the existence of less drastic sanctions other than dismissal.
Davis v. Williams , 588 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1978).
In the present case, the Petitioner is proceeding pro se so he is entirely responsible for his actions. It is solely through Petitioner's neglect, and not that of an attorney, that no responses have been filed. Petitioner has not responded to Respondent's motion for summary judgment or the court's order requiring him to respond. Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(b).
As set out above, a review of the record indicates that the petition should be dismissed for failure to prosecute. It is, therefore,
RECOMMENDED that the petition be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. ...