Staley v. South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Dora Staley, ) C/A No.: 3:19-2829-MGL-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER South Carolina State Law ) Enforcement Division, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights by South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (“Defendant”). On January 29, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. [ECF No. 30]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to , 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising her of the importance of the motion and of the need for her to file an adequate response by March 2, 2020. [ECF No. 32]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if she failed to respond adequately, the motion may be granted.

Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s motion.

As such, it appears to the court that she does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether she wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the motion for summary judgment by March 20, 2020. Plaintiff is further advised that if she 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 March 6, 2020 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge