Opinion
C/A No.: 1:16-2953-TMC-SVH
06-12-2017
Robert Lee Randolph, Jr., #6210, Plaintiff, v. Vernetta Dozier and Harold Young, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Robert Lee Randolph, Jr. ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 25, 2016. [ECF No. 1]. On March 10, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 31]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 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 April 10, 2017. [ECF No. 32]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendants' motion may be granted. Id. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion.
On April 14, 2017, the court ordered Plaintiff to advise whether he wished to continue with the case by April 28, 2017. [ECF No. 34]. On May 1, 2017, the undersigned extended Plaintiff's deadline, granting him until May 31, 2017, to respond to Defendants' motion. [ECF No. 37]. Plaintiff has filed no response. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends this action 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. June 12, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
/s/
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached
"Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation."
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must 'only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).