From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Floyd v. Ray

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION
May 15, 2019
Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-1677-MGL (D.S.C. May. 15, 2019)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-1677-MGL

05-15-2019

JOSHUA ASHTON FLOYD, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTOR PATRICIA RAY AND OFFICER TAMMY MOSES, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Joshua Ashton Floyd (Floyd), proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights by Defendants Director Patricia Ray and Officer Tammy Moses (collectively Defendants). This action is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Floyd's action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

On February 22, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 35. On February 25, the Magistrate Judge issued a Roseboro order advising Floyd that failure to respond adequately by March 28, 2019 may result in the motion being granted. ECF No. 37. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instruction set forth in the Roseboro order, Floyd failed to file a response to Defendants' motion. The Magistrate Judge issued a second order on April 2, 2019, advising Floyd that a failure to respond by April, 16, 2019, would result in the Magistrate Judge recommending the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 39. Floyd again neglected to file a response.

Based on Floyd's failure to respond to the Court's February 25, 2019 and April 2, 2019, orders, the Court concludes Floyd does not oppose Defendants' motion and wishes to abandon this matter. As Floyd has failed to prosecute this case and failed to comply with the Court's orders, the case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-36 (1962).

To the extent Floyd requests a certificate of appealability from this Court, that certificate is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 15th day of May, 2019, in Columbia, South Carolina.

s/ Mary Geiger Lewis

MARY GEIGER LEWIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Floyd v. Ray

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION
May 15, 2019
Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-1677-MGL (D.S.C. May. 15, 2019)
Case details for

Floyd v. Ray

Case Details

Full title:JOSHUA ASHTON FLOYD, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTOR PATRICIA RAY AND OFFICER TAMMY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION

Date published: May 15, 2019

Citations

Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-1677-MGL (D.S.C. May. 15, 2019)