Opinion
C/A No.: 1:12-639-JMC-SVH
08-08-2012
Dean Kinningham, Plaintiff, v. Warden Adwell and GEO Care, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant GEO Care of South Carlina, Inc. ("GEO Care") filed a motion to dismiss on June 14, 2012. [Entry #23]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order on June 15, 2012, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of a motion to dismiss and of the need for him to file an adequate response. [Entry #26]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, GEO Care's motion may be granted. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion.
On July 23, 2012, the court ordered Plaintiff to advise whether he wished to continue with his claims against GEO Care by August 6, 2012. [Entry #29]. Plaintiff again failed to file a response. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action against GEO Care. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff's claims against GEO Care be dismissed with prejudice 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 RECOMMENDED. August 8, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge