Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Grayson v. Warden of Broad River

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

July 2, 2019

Antwan Dominique Grayson, #329430, Petitioner,
v.
Warden of Broad River, Respondent.

          ORDER

          JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner's two pro se motions. On December 26, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment. (ECF No. 34). On April 29, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion to Reopen Case. (ECF No. 38).

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), on motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

         II. DISCUSSION

         By way of background, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brought an action requesting a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 13, 2017, Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 9). Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), Petitioner was advised of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to Respondent's motion. (ECF No. 11). Petitioner was advised of the importance of a motion and of the need from him to file an adequate response to the motion for summary judgment by October 16, 2017. Id. The Magistrate Judge subsequently extended Petitioner's deadline to respond on October 12, 2017, November 17, 2017, and December 20, 2017, granting him until January 16, 2018 to respond. (ECF Nos. 14, 17, & 20).

         Despite these three extensions, Petitioner failed to respond. Thus, on January 23, 2018, the Court ordered Petitioner to advise the Court whether he wished to continue with this case and to file a response to the motion for summary judgment by February 6, 2018. (ECF No. 22). Again, Petitioner failed to respond.

         As a result, the Magistrate Judge issued its Report and Recommendation (“Report”) on February 12, 2018 recommending that the action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 24). Petitioner was given until February 26, 2018 to file objections to the Report. Id. However, Petitioner failed to file objections to the Report. Thereafter, on March 5, 2018, this Court issued an Order adopting the Report and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.