Maness v. Williams
Maness v. Williams
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Don Sherrill Maness III #370865, ) C/A No.: 1:20-1448-DCN-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Warden Charles Williams; ) Associate Warden Thomas ) ORDER Robertson; Associate Warden Y. ) Turner; Miss Green, Head of ) Classification at McCormick CI; ) Captain Stacey Terry; Brian ) Stirling, ) ) Defendants. ) )
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights by Defendants. On October 20, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 24]. 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 November 20, 2020. [ECF No. 25]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he 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 Defendants’ motion. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motions and wishes to abandon this case. 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 by December 7, 2020. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, the undersigned will recommend this case 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. PP Ut Lladger November 23, 2020 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown