Jackson v. Toro ( 2021 )

IFNO TRH TEH UE NDIITSETDR ISCTTA OTFE SS ODUISTTHR ICCATR COOLUINRAT Tommie Jackson, ) C/A No.: 1:21-358-RMG-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) LT. Toro; Captain Jones; LT. ) Hardy; LT. Lorenzo; Property ) Officer Davids; Property Officer ) ORDER Torrez; Unit Counselor Walker; ) Unit Counselor Germanski; Unit ) Manager Henry; Nurse Truesdale; ) Nurse Davids; Doctor Hoey, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights by Defendants. On August 30, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 39]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to , 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 October 1, 2021. [ECF No. 40]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the motion may be granted. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants’ motion. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon his claims against Defendants. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the motion by October 19, 2021. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, the undersigned will recommend this case be dismissed 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 ORDERED. PP Ut Lladger October 4, 2021 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge