Opinion
Civil Action No. 2:05-1570-CMC-JRM.
May 9, 2006
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. On March 8, 2006, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. By order of this court filed March 9, 2006, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the plaintiff was advised of the summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. Despite this explanation, the plaintiff elected not to respond to the motion.
As the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court filed a second order on April 18, 2006, allowing the plaintiff an additional fifteen days in which to advise the court whether he wished to continue to prosecute this action. The plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond, this action would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The plaintiff did not respond to the order.
A complaint may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with orders of the court. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied 493 U.S. 1084 (1990) and Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919 (4th Cir. 1982). In considering whether to dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b), the court is required to consider four factors:
(1) the degree of plaintiff's responsibility in failing to respond;
(2) the amount of prejudice to the defendant;
(3) the history of the plaintiff in proceeding in a dilatory manner; and
(4) the existence of less drastic sanctions other than dismissal.Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1978).
In the present case, the plaintiff is proceeding pro se so he is entirely responsible for his actions. It is solely through plaintiff's neglect, and not that of an attorney, that no responses have been filed. Plaintiff has not responded to defendants' motion for summary judgment or the court's orders requiring him to respond. No other reasonable sanctions are available. Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 41(b).
Respectfully submitted,