Young v. Warden FCI Estill

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Akeem Young, ) C/A No. 0:20-007-TMC-PJG ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Warden FCI Estill, ) ) Respondent. ) ) The petitioner has filed this action, pro se, seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss on March 3, 2020, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 13.) As the petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on March 4, 2020, advising the petitioner of the importance of a motion to dismiss and of the need for him to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 14.) The petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the respondent’s motion may be granted, thereby ending his case.

On March 16, 2020, the court issued Standing Order, Misc. No. 3:20-mc-105, that extended the plaintiff’s deadline by twenty-one days from the set deadline—which in this instance was April 6, 2020—due to the current public health emergency regarding COVID-19. Despite this extension of time and notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order, the plaintiff 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.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the petitioner shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the respondent’s motion for to dismiss on or before May 14, 2020. The 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.

April 30, 2020 Paige J. Ae Columbia, South Carolina UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Page 2 of 2