Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. McCall

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

December 10, 2014

Donnie Jones, #318400, Plaintiff,
v.
David McCall, Gwendolyn Stokes, Willie Davis, Franklin Richardson, Jr., Stephanie Brown, Sandra Jones, All Employees of South Carolina Department of Corrections, and Warden Robert M. Stephenson, III, Defendants

Donnie Jones, Plaintiff, Pro se, Ridgeville, SC.

For David McCall, Gwendolyn Stokes, Willie Davis, Franklin Richardson, Jr, Stephanie Brown, Sandra Jones, All Employees of South Carolina Dept of Corrections, Warden Robert M Stephenson, III, Defendants: Steven Michael Pruitt, LEAD ATTORNEY, McDonald Patrick Tinsley Baggett Poston and Hemphill, Greenwood, SC.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Bristow Marchant, United States Magistrate Judge.

The pro se Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. On September 3, 2014, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. As the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, a Roseboro Order was entered by the Court on September 5, 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' motion 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 has failed to respond to the motion, 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 919 (4th Cir. 1982).[1] 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 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, 110 S.Ct. 1145, 107 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1990) [Magistrate Judge's prior explicit warning that a recommendation of dismissal would result from plaintiff failing to obey his order was proper grounds for the district court to dismiss suit when plaintiff did not comply despite warning].[2]

The parties are referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.