Pullins v. Dobbs

D. South Carolina

Pullins v. Dobbs

DecidedApril 7, 2020

Docket0:19-cv-03492

StatusUnknown

This text of Pullins v. Dobbs (Pullins v. Dobbs) 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

Pullins v. Dobbs, (D.S.C. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Demetrius Pullins, ) C/A No. 0:19-3492-JFA-PJG ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) B. Dobbs, Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) )

The petitioner has filed this action, pro se, seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on February 21, 2020, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 14.) As the petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on February 24, 2020, advising the petitioner of the importance of a motion for summary judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 15.) The petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the respondent’s motion may be granted, thereby ending his case. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order, the 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. However, on March 16, 2020, the court issued Standing Order, Misc. No. 3:20-mc-105, that extended the petitioner’s deadline by twenty-one days from the set deadline—which in this instance was March 26, 2020—due to the current public health emergency regarding COVID-19. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the petitioner shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the respondent’s motion for summary judgment on or before April 16, 2020. The 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 IS SO ORDERED.

April 7, 2020 Paige J. Ae Columbia, South Carolina UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

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

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

Demetrius Pullins, ) C/A No. 0:19-3492-JFA-PJG ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) B. Dobbs, Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) )

The petitioner has filed this action, pro se, seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on February 21, 2020, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 14.) As the petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on February 24, 2020, advising the petitioner of the importance of a motion for summary judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 15.) The petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the respondent’s motion may be granted, thereby ending his case. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order, the 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. However, on March 16, 2020, the court issued Standing Order, Misc. No. 3:20-mc-105, that extended the petitioner’s deadline by twenty-one days from the set deadline—which in this instance was March 26, 2020—due to the current public health emergency regarding COVID-19. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the petitioner shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the respondent’s motion for summary judgment on or before April 16, 2020. The 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 IS SO ORDERED.

April 7, 2020 Paige J. Ae Columbia, South Carolina UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pullins v. Dobbs, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pullins-v-dobbs-scd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack