United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
WALLACE W. DIXON, Magistrate Judge.
The pro se Petitioner brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. On February 27, 2014, the Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. As the Petitioner is proceeding pro se, a Roseboro Order was entered by the Court on March 3, 2014, advising Petitioner of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response. Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to file a properly supported response, the Respondent's motion may be granted, thereby ending his case.
Petitioner requested two extensions of time; those requests were granted, such that his response was due on June 2, 2014. However, notwithstanding the extensions and the specific warning and instructions as set forth in the Court's Roseboro order, the Petitioner has failed to respond to the motion, or to contact the Court in any way.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Petitioner 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 Petitioner at his last known address. If the Petitioner 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 motion 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 warning that ...