Bobo v. Warden of Evans Correctional Institution ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Allen Bobo, ) C/A No.: 1:20-3078-TMC-SVH ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) Warden of Evans Correctional ) Institution, ) ) Respondent. ) ) Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brought this action requesting a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on November 3, 2020. [ECF No. 13]. As Petitioner 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 December 4, 2020. [ECF No. 14]. Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Respondent’s motion may be granted, thereby ending this case. . Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s order, Petitioner has failed to respond to the motion. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Respondent’s motion for summary judgment by December 22, 2020. Petitioner is further advised that if he 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 1S SO RECOMMENDED. PP Ut Lladger December 8, 2020 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.” Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” , 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to: Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court 901 Richland Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); , 474 U.S. 140 (1985); , 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); , 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).