IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Jeremy Travoli Saxon, ) C/A No. 0:19-2436-DCN-PJG ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Brittany Archambault; Lonnie Smith; Donna ) Miller, ) ) Defendants. ) )

The plaintiff has filed this action, pro se, seeking relief pursuant to

. Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, alleges violations of his constitutional rights by the named defendants. Defendant Miller filed a motion for summary judgment on July 2, 2020, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 64.) As the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison,

(4th Cir. 1975), on July 6, 2020, advising the plaintiff of the importance of a motion for summary judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 65.) The plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the defendant’s motion may be granted, thereby ending his case against her. 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 as to Defendant Miller. Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with his claims against Defendant Miller and file a response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, the claims against Defendant Miller will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams,

(4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 13, 2020 Paige J. LA Columbia, South Carolina UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 2 of 2