United States District Court, D. South Carolina.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRISTOW MARCHANT, Magistrate Judge.
The pro se Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. On April 28, 2014, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss or for summary judgment. As the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, a Roseboro Order was entered by the Court on April 29, 2014, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to file a properly supported response, the Defendants' motions may be granted, thereby ending his case. However, notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions as set forth in the Court's Roseboro order, the Plaintiff failed to respond to the motions for summary judgment, or to contact the Court in any way.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff meets all of the criteria for dismissal under Chandler Leasing Corp. V. Lopez, 669 F.2d 929 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. See Davis v. Williams , 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.
The Clerk shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff at his last known address. If the Plaintiff notifies the Court within the time set forth for filing objections to this Report and Recommendation that he wishes to continue with this case and provides a response to the motions for summary judgment, the Clerk is directed to vacate this Report and Recommendation and return this file to the undersigned for further handling. If, however, no objections are filed, the Clerk shall forward this Report and Recommendation to the District Judge for disposition. Ballard v. Carlson , 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied sub nom, Ballard v. Volunteers of America , 493 U.S. 1084 (1990) [Magistrate Judge's prior explicit ...