Bower v. Onuoha, M.D., C.D. ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Joshua Bower, ) C/A No.: 1:20-1213-SAL-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Jude Onuoha, M.D., and Foy D. ) ORDER Connell, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights by Defendants.1 On August 20, 2020, defendant Onuoha filed a motion to dismiss/summary judgment. [ECF No. 21]. 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 September 21, 2020. [ECF No. 22]. 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 defendant Onuoha’s motion. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and 1 In a Report and Recommendation dated May 27, 2020, the undersigned recommended defendant Connell be summarily dismissed from this action. [ECF No. 15]. wishes to abandon this case. 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 9, 2020. 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. (Yaa. V: Paper September 25, 2020 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge