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.

Gibbs v. Stevenson

United States District Court, District of South Carolina

February 4, 2015

Clarence Gibbs, Petitioner,
v.
Robert M. Stevenson, Warden, Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SHIVA V. HODGES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on December 9, 2014. [ECF No. 27]. As Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) on December 11, 2014, advising him of the importance of the motion for summary judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response. [ECF No. 29]. Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Respondent’s motion may be granted. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order, Petitioner has failed to respond to the motion.

On January 16, 2015, the court ordered Petitioner to advise whether he wished to continue with the case by January 30, 2015. [ECF No. 32]. Petitioner has filed no response. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).


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.