AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

Andre King, Petitioner, v. Warden McFadden, Respondent.

Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on May 22, 2014. [Entry #19]. As Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on May 22, 2014, advising him of the importance of a motion for summary judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response. [Entry #21]. Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately by June 26, 2014, Respondent's motion may be granted, thereby ending this case. Petitioner moved for, and the court granted, two extensions of time until August 28, 2014, in which to file a response.

Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, Petitioner 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. Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that Petitioner shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Respondent's motion for summary judgment by September 16, 2014. Petitioner 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. September 2, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina


/s/


Shiva V. Hodges


United States Magistrate Judge


Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

King v. McFadden
(Sep 2, 2014)