Paige v. Barnwell ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Sabrena Paige, ) C/A No.: 1:19-901-SAL-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER Matthew Barnwell; Aiken ) Department of Public Safety; and ) the City of Aiken, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations of her constitutional rights by Defendants. On March 25, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and for sanctions. [ECF No. 35]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to , 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising her of the importance of the motion and of the need for her to file an adequate response by April 27, 2020. [ECF No. 36]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if she failed to respond adequately, the motion may be granted. On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff requested an additional 90 days to respond to the motion. [ECF No. 38]. The undersigned declined to grant 90 days, but permitted Plaintiff until May 27, 2020, to file a response. [ECF No. 39]. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s motion. As such, it appears to the court that she does not oppose the motions and wishes to abandon this case. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether she wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the motion to dismiss by June 17, 2020. Plaintiff is further advised that if she 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. (Yaa. V: Paper June 3, 2020 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge