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.

Vaughn v. Riley

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

May 4, 2015

Christopher M. Vaughn, # 339181, Petitioner,
v.
Warden Tim Riley, Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MARY GORDON BAKER, Magistrate Judge.

The Petitioner brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. On December 15, 2014, the Honorable Wallace W. Dixon issued an order providing, inter alia,

You are ordered to always keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing (at Post Office Box 835, Charleston, South Carolina 29402) if your address changes for any reason, so as to assure that you receive orders or other matters that specify deadlines for you to meet. 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. Therefore, if you have a change of address before this case is ended, you must comply with this order by immediately advising the Clerk of Court in writing of such change of address and providing the court with the docket number of all pending cases you have filed with this court. Your failure to do so will not be excused by the court.

(Dkt. No. 6 at 2-3.)

On February 6, 2015, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 12; see also Dkt. No. 11.) By Order of this court filed February 6, 2015, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Petitioner was advised of the summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. (Dkt. No. 13.) Despite the explanation in the Roseboro Order, the Petitioner did not respond.[1]

Based on the foregoing, it appears the Petitioner no longer wishes to pursue this action. Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this Court's orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir.1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.


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.