Rose v. State of South Carolina

D. South Carolina

Rose v. State of South Carolina

DecidedFebruary 11, 2022

Docket2:21-cv-02909

StatusUnknown

This text of Rose v. State of South Carolina (Rose 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

Rose v. State of South Carolina, (D.S.C. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

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

James Edward Rose, Jr., #1432, ) Civil Action No.: 2:21-cv-002909-JMC ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER v. ) ) State of South Carolina, Berkeley County ) Sheriff’s Office, Hill-Finklea Detention ) Center, R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Deadra L. ) Jefferson, Wilton McNeely, Brandon D. ) Latullip, T. Dodd, Berkeley County Jail ) Keepers, Ronnie J. Russel, Paula Fechelm ) McElvegue, B. Watson, Henry’s Towing, ) Henry Legette, Bad Boyz Bail Bonds, ) Marie Fuller, Bo Wilson, Randy Demory, ) Anthony Phyall, Kris Jacumin, Sergeant ) Dozer, Officer Staley, K. Shuler, Debra K. ) Littlejohn, Judge Prioleau, Officer A. ) Lizzono, Gary Wasieleuski, ) ) Defendants. )

This is a civil action filed by a pretrial detainee. This case is before the court due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with either the Magistrate Judge’s Proper Form Order (ECF No. 9) or the Magistrate Judge’s order to submit service documents (ECF No. 24). The orders were sent to Plaintiff’s provided address and have not been returned as undeliverable to the court, thus it is presumed that Plaintiff received the Magistrate Judge’s orders but has neglected to comply within the time permitted. A review of the record indicates that the Magistrate Judge specifically informed Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s instructions, this case would be subject to dismissal. Plaintiff’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 plaintiff fails to comply with an order of the court); see also Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (affirming district court’s dismissal of action for failure to comply with a court order); Robertson v. Anderson Mill Elementary Sch., 989 F.3d 282, 291 (4th Cir. 2021) (explaining that district courts may dismiss inadequate complaints sua sponte as long as the plaintiff has been provided notice and opportunity to amend the complaint). Accordingly, the court DISMISSES this case without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge February 10, 2022 Columbia, South Carolina

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 CHARLESTON DIVISION

James Edward Rose, Jr., #1432, ) Civil Action No.: 2:21-cv-002909-JMC ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER v. ) ) State of South Carolina, Berkeley County ) Sheriff’s Office, Hill-Finklea Detention ) Center, R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Deadra L. ) Jefferson, Wilton McNeely, Brandon D. ) Latullip, T. Dodd, Berkeley County Jail ) Keepers, Ronnie J. Russel, Paula Fechelm ) McElvegue, B. Watson, Henry’s Towing, ) Henry Legette, Bad Boyz Bail Bonds, ) Marie Fuller, Bo Wilson, Randy Demory, ) Anthony Phyall, Kris Jacumin, Sergeant ) Dozer, Officer Staley, K. Shuler, Debra K. ) Littlejohn, Judge Prioleau, Officer A. ) Lizzono, Gary Wasieleuski, ) ) Defendants. )

This is a civil action filed by a pretrial detainee. This case is before the court due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with either the Magistrate Judge’s Proper Form Order (ECF No. 9) or the Magistrate Judge’s order to submit service documents (ECF No. 24). The orders were sent to Plaintiff’s provided address and have not been returned as undeliverable to the court, thus it is presumed that Plaintiff received the Magistrate Judge’s orders but has neglected to comply within the time permitted. A review of the record indicates that the Magistrate Judge specifically informed Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s instructions, this case would be subject to dismissal. Plaintiff’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 plaintiff fails to comply with an order of the court); see also Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (affirming district court’s dismissal of action for failure to comply with a court order); Robertson v. Anderson Mill Elementary Sch., 989 F.3d 282, 291 (4th Cir. 2021) (explaining that district courts may dismiss inadequate complaints sua sponte as long as the plaintiff has been provided notice and opportunity to amend the complaint). Accordingly, the court DISMISSES this case without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge February 10, 2022 Columbia, South Carolina

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rose v. State of South Carolina, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-state-of-south-carolina-scd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack