Clark v. Decker

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Antoine A. Clark, ) C/A No.: 1:19-1663-TLW-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Warden Decker, Ford, Cannon, ) ORDER Smith, Woods, Bruker, Howard, ) Allen, Jackson, Crowe, Bragg, ) Kampeesay, Blackwell, Robbins, ) and Stephon, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights by defendants. The undersigned ordered service of process against defendant Blackwell on July 10, 2019.1 On January 17, 2020, Blackwell filed a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 43]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to , 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of the motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response by February 21, 2020. [ECF No. 43]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the motion may be granted.

1 Also on July 10, 2019, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that all other defendants be dismissed.

Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Blackwell’s 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, Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the motion for summary judgment by March 9, 2020. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed 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.

Gwe. V: Mager February 24, 2020 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge