United States District Court, D. South Carolina
July 27, 2015
T. Terell Bryan, #254638 Plaintiff,
Michael McCall, Florence Mauney, Dennis Bush, Sgt. Lawless, Sgt. Lindsey, Lt. Church, Lt. Lasley, Lt. Terry, Major Mursier, Assistant Warden Lewis, Warden Cartledge, Ms. Saltsburg, DHO Glidwell, Coach Rowe, Ashley Maddox, IGC Talbert, Ms. Williams, Sgt. Young, Cpl. Morton, Ann Hallman, SCDC, ALC Clerk, ALC, Clerk of S.C. Court of Appeals, S.C. Court of Appeals, Defendants.
KAYMANI D. WEST, 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 June 15, 2015, Defendants Bush, Cartledge, Glidwell, Lewis, Mauney, McCall, Morton, Mursier, Rowe, Saltsburg, Talbert, Terry, Williams, and Young filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 46. 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. 48. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the Defendants' Motion may be granted, thereby ending this case against them.
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 to Dismiss by August 27, 2015. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action will 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.