Buy This Entire Record For
Lisenby v. Reynolds
United States District Court, District of South Carolina
April 22, 2015
Billy Lee Lisenby, Plaintiff,
Warden Cecilia Reynolds, Lt. Robert Miller, Grievance Clerk P. Hough, James S. Sligh, Jr., Major D. Seward, A. Sellers, DHO, Counsel Substitute Armstrong, and Mr. Padula Defendants.
Kaymani D. West United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 27, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 62. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of such motions and of the need for him to file adequate responses. ECF No. 63. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the Defendants’ motion may be granted, thereby ending this case.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Motion. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the Motion and wishes to abandon this action against these Defendants. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment by May 22, 2015. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be ...