Stanley v. Pressley ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION Aaron D. Stanley, ) C/A No.: 5:19-cv-01426-RMG Plaintiff, Vv. ORDER Nardia Pressley, Curtis Brown, and Sara Thacker, ) Defendants. oo) This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Dkt. No. 35) of the Magistrate Judge to grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 29, 33) and dismiss Plaintiffs case with prejudice for lack of prosecution. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the R & R as the order of the Court. On September 10, 2019, a Roseboro order was issued by the Court advising Plaintiff of the necessity to adequately respond to Defendants’ motions. (Dkt. No. 30.) Plaintiff was informed that failure to respond could result in granting Defendants’ motions and ending the case. (/d.) The Roseboro order was mailed to Plaintiffs last known address but was later returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. Nos. 31, 34.) The Plaintiff was advised by order dated May 17, 2019 of his responsibility to notify the Court in writing if his address changed. (Dkt. No. 9 at 3.) Pursuant to Rule 41(b) if the Plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with an order of the court, the action may be dismissed. Fed R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Court received no response from Plaintiff and the time to respond has passed. Plaintiff's lack of response indicates an intent not to prosecute this case and subjects this case to dismissal. Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the Court adopts the R & R as the order of the Court (Dkt. No. 35) and Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. rn Richard Mark a United States District Court Judge December , 2019 Charleston, South Carolina