United States District Court, D. South Carolina
March 31, 2015
Terrance Griffin, Plaintiff,
Fletcher McBride; Grealin Frazier, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PAIGE J. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 5, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 33.) By order of this court filed January 6, 2015, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison , 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the plaintiff was advised of the dismissal and summary judgment procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. (ECF No. 36.)
On February 11, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file his response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 52.) The court granted the plaintiff's motion by docket text order on February 12, 2015. (ECF No. 54.) The plaintiff was specifically warned that if he failed to respond, this action would be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams , 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
Despite his extension of time and notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, the plaintiff failed to respond to the motion. Therefore, the plaintiff meets all of the criteria for dismissal under Chandler Leasing Corporation v. Lopez , 669 F.2d 919 (4th Cir. 1982).
Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. See Davis , 588 F.2d at 70; Ballard v. Carlson , 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (stating that magistrate judge's prior explicit warning that a recommendation of dismissal would result from the plaintiff failing to obey his order was proper grounds for the district court to dismiss the suit when the plaintiff did not comply despite the warning), cert. denied sub nom, Ballard v. Volunteers of America , 493 U.S. 1084 (1990); Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). In light of the court's recommendation, the court further recommends that any pending motions (ECF No. 33) be terminated.