Shuler v. North Charleston Police Department ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Melodie Shuler, ) C/A No. 2:19-1013-MGL-PJG ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) North Charleston Police Department; Chief ) Eddie Driggers; Sergeant Ronald Webb; ) Officer Clarence Habersham; Justin Infinger; ) Officer Justice Jenkins,, ) ) Defendants. ) ) The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, filed this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on December 2, 2019, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 40.) As the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on December 3, 2019, advising the plaintiff of the importance of a motion for summary judgment and of the need for her to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 41.) The plaintiff was specifically advised that if she failed to respond adequately, the defendants’ motion may be granted, thereby ending her case. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order, the plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion. As such, it appears to the court that she does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff shall advise the court as to whether she wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the defendants’ motion within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. Plaintiff is further advised that if she fails to respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal 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 ORDERED. January 8, 2020 Paige J. LA Columbia, South Carolina UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Page 2 of 2