IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION

CHRISTINE BARNETTE, ) ) Civil Action No. 7:22cv00388 Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) DANIEL HILL, et al., ) By: Hon. Thomas T. Cullen ) United States District Judge Defendants. ) ________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Christine Barnette, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under

. On January 8, 2023, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and, on January 9, 2023, the court issued a notice pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison,

(4th Cir. 2005). (See ECF Nos. 20−22.) The Roseboro notice gave Barnette 21 days to file a response to the motion and advised her that, if she did not respond to the defendants’ motion, the court would “assume that Plaintiff has lost interest in the case, and/or that Plaintiff agrees with what the Defendant[s] state[] in their responsive pleading(s).” (Notice, Jan. 9, 2023 [ECF No. 22].) The notice further advised Barnette that, if she wished to continue with the case, it was “necessary that [she] respond in an appropriate fashion,” and that if she failed to file a response to the motion within the time allotted, the court “may dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.” (Id.) To date, Barnette has not responded to the motion or the court’s notice and, therefore, the court will dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.1 The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying

Order to the parties. ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2023.

/s/ Thomas T. Cullen________________ HON. THOMAS T. CULLEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 The court notes that the Roseboro notice was initially returned to the court as undeliverable (see ECF No. 24), but the court resent the notice to an updated jail address on February 6, 2023 (see ECF No. 26); the remailed notice was not returned to the court.