Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Holmes v. Karafa

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

January 14, 2015

George Holmes, Plaintiff,
Cpl. Karafa, Jessica Desantis, and Pfc. K. Shew, Defendants.


MARY GORDON BAKER, Magistrate Judge.

The pro se Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. By Order dated September 15, 2014, Plaintiff was given a specific time frame in which to bring this case into proper form. (Dkt. No. 8.) That Order also stated, inter alia,

You are ordered to always keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing (Post Office Box 835, Charleston, South Carolina 29402) if your address changes for any reason, so as to assure that orders or other matters that specify deadlines for you to meet will be received by you. If as a result of your failure to comply with this Order, you fail to meet a deadline set by this Court, your case may be dismissed for violating this Order.

(Dkt. No. 8 at 3 of 4.) On or about October 3, 2014, Plaintiff submitted the required proper form documents. The Honorable Wallace Dixon issued an order authorizing service of process on October 9, 2014. (Dkt. No. 14.)

On November 25, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 18.) As the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, a Roseboro Order was entered by the Court on December 1, 2014, advising the 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. Plaintiff's response was due on January 8, 2015. However, on or about December 19, 2014, the Roseboro Order was returned to the Clerk of Court marked "Return to Sender Insufficient Address Unable to Forward." (Dkt. No. 25.)

Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions as set forth in the Court's Roseboro order and other orders, the Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Motion to Dismiss and failed to keep the Clerk of Court informed in writing of his proper address.

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).[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 to Dismiss, 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 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.