United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
F. McDonald, United States Magistrate Judge.
plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brought this
action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42, United States
Code 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United
States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized
to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under Title 42,
United States Code 1983 and submit findings and
recommendations to the district court.
February 10, 2017, the plaintiff was specifically advised by
order to keep the Clerk of Court informed of any change of
address (doc. 6). On June 30, 2017, defendant Self Regional
Health Care filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim (doc. 31). By order filed the same date, pursuant to
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975),
the plaintiff was advised of the summary judgment and
dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he
failed to respond adequately (doc. 33). The plaintiff's
response was due on July 31, 2017. On July 5, 2017, defendant
Devin Holmes filed a motion for summary judgment (doc. 37).
On July 6, 2017, a Roseboro order, again advising
the plaintiff of the summary judgment and dismissal
procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to
respond adequately, was mailed to the plaintiff (doc. 40).
6, 2017, the Clerk of Court sent the plaintiff a letter
advising him that several orders had been returned to the
court and providing him with a change of address form (doc.
39). On July 11 and 18, 2017, the Clerk's letter and the
Roseboro orders were returned as undeliverable
(docs. 43, 44). No forwarding address was provided.
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court filed a
second order on August 10, 2017, giving the plaintiff through
August 30, 2017, in which to file his response to defendant
Self Regional's motion to dismiss (doc. 46). The
plaintiff was again specifically advised that, if he failed
to respond, the action against Self Regional would be
dismissed for failure to prosecute. The plaintiff did not
respond. On August 22, 2017, the order was returned to the
Clerk as undeliverable. There was no forwarding address
provided (doc. 49)
court also filed a second order on August 23, 2017, giving
the plaintiff through September 12, 2017, in which to file
his response to defendant Holmes' motion for summary
judgment (doc. 51). The plaintiff was again specifically
advised that, if he failed to respond, this action against
defendant Holmes would be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
The plaintiff did not respond. On September 5, 2017, the
order was returned to the Clerk as undeliverable. There was
no forwarding address provided (doc. 53).
complaint may be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and/or failure to
comply with orders of the court. Ballard v. Carlson,
882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir.1989). In considering whether to
dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b), the court is
required to consider four factors:
(1) the degree of personal responsibility on the part of the
(2) the amount of prejudice to the defendant caused by the
(3) the history of the plaintiff in proceeding in a dilatory
(4) the existence of less drastic sanctions other than
Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir.1978).
present case, the plaintiff is proceeding pro se,
and he is thus entirely responsible for his actions. It is
solely through the plaintiff's neglect, and not that of
an attorney, that no responses to the pending dispositive
motions have been filed. Meanwhile, the defendants are left
to wonder when the action against them will be resolved. The
plaintiff has not responded to the defendants' motions to
dismiss and for summary judgment or the court's orders
requiring him to respond. Nor has he complied with this
court's order to keep the Clerk advised of any address
change. Accordingly, the undersigned concludes the plaintiff
has abandoned his lawsuit. No other reasonable sanctions are
on the foregoing, it appears the plaintiff no longer wishes
to pursue this action. Accordingly, it is recommended that
this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to
Rule 41(b). Should the district court adopt this
recommendation, defendant Self Regional's motion to
dismiss (doc. ...