Anderson v. State of South Carolina

D. South Carolina

Anderson v. State of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 15, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-01423

StatusUnknown

This text of Anderson v. State of South Carolina (Anderson v. State of South Carolina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. State of South Carolina, (D.S.C. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Trevion Anderson, #382594, ) C/A No. 4:25-1423-DCC-TER aka Tre’Vion Anderson, ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER Warden, Evans Correctional Institution, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________________ Petitioner is a state prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This case is before the Court because of Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s Orders to pay the fee or apply for in forma pauperis status. ECF Nos. 5, 11. A review of the record indicates that the Magistrate Judge twice ordered Petitioner to submit items needed to render this case into proper form within a time certain and specifically informed Petitioner that if he failed to do so, this case would be subject to dismissal. The Court has not received the fee or a motion for in forma pauperis from Petitioner and the time for compliance has passed. The mail in which the Order was sent to Petitioner at the address provided when the case was filed has not been returned to the Court, thus it is presumed that Petitioner received the Order but has neglected to comply with it within the time permitted under the Order. Petitioner’s lack of response to the Order indicates an intent to not prosecute this case, and subjects this case to dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (district courts may dismiss an action if a Petitioner fails to comply with an order of the court.); see also Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate where warning given); Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982) (court may dismiss sua sponte). Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge July 15, 2025 Spartanburg, South Carolina

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Trevion Anderson, #382594, ) C/A No. 4:25-1423-DCC-TER aka Tre’Vion Anderson, ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER Warden, Evans Correctional Institution, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________________ Petitioner is a state prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This case is before the Court because of Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s Orders to pay the fee or apply for in forma pauperis status. ECF Nos. 5, 11. A review of the record indicates that the Magistrate Judge twice ordered Petitioner to submit items needed to render this case into proper form within a time certain and specifically informed Petitioner that if he failed to do so, this case would be subject to dismissal. The Court has not received the fee or a motion for in forma pauperis from Petitioner and the time for compliance has passed. The mail in which the Order was sent to Petitioner at the address provided when the case was filed has not been returned to the Court, thus it is presumed that Petitioner received the Order but has neglected to comply with it within the time permitted under the Order. Petitioner’s lack of response to the Order indicates an intent to not prosecute this case, and subjects this case to dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (district courts may dismiss an action if a Petitioner fails to comply with an order of the court.); see also Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate where warning given); Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982) (court may dismiss sua sponte). Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge July 15, 2025 Spartanburg, South Carolina

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Anderson v. State of South Carolina, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-state-of-south-carolina-scd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack