Lincoln v. O'Conor

D. South Carolina

Lincoln v. O'Conor

DecidedMarch 29, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-01238

StatusUnknown

This text of Lincoln v. O'Conor (Lincoln v. O'Conor) 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

Lincoln v. O'Conor, (D.S.C. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Jonathan Artneil Lincoln, ) C/A No.: 1:22-1238-MGL -SVH ) Plaintiff, ) )

) vs. ) ) ORDER PSO O’Conor, PSO Harrington, ) PSO Anderson, and PSO Starke, ) ) ) Defendants. )

Jonathan Artneil Lincoln (“Plaintiff”) filed this matter on April 15, 2022. On December 12. 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 55]. 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 January 13, 2023. [ECF No. 57]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the motion may be granted. Plaintiff was subsequently granted an extension until March 24, 2023. [ECF No. 68]. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s order, Plaintiff 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 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 April 11, 2028. 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 1S SO ORDERED. PP Ut Slalger March 29, 2023 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge

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

IN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Jonathan Artneil Lincoln, ) C/A No.: 1:22-1238-MGL -SVH ) Plaintiff, ) )

) vs. ) ) ORDER PSO O’Conor, PSO Harrington, ) PSO Anderson, and PSO Starke, ) ) ) Defendants. )

Jonathan Artneil Lincoln (“Plaintiff”) filed this matter on April 15, 2022. On December 12. 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 55]. 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 January 13, 2023. [ECF No. 57]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the motion may be granted. Plaintiff was subsequently granted an extension until March 24, 2023. [ECF No. 68]. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s order, Plaintiff 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 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 April 11, 2028. 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 1S SO ORDERED. PP Ut Slalger March 29, 2023 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lincoln v. O'Conor, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lincoln-v-oconor-scd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack