Dowe v. Wray ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Donta Malik Dowe, ) C/A No.: 1:22-3-DCN-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER Director Patricia Wray; Captain ) Willie Sweat; Major Lumpkin; ) Correctional Officer Smith; and ) Nurse Steele, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights by Defendants. On May 3, 2022, defendants Wray, Sweat, Lumpkin, and Smith filed a motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 29], and defendant Steele filed a motion for summary judgment on May 5, 2022 [ECF No. 32]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered orders pursuant to , 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of the motions and of the need for him to file adequate responses by June 3, 2022 and June 6, 2022, respectively. [ECF Nos. 30, 33]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the motions may be granted. 1 Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants’ motions. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motions 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 June 23, 2022. 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. pont fege June 9, 2022 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge