Shuler v. Orangeburg County Sheriff's Department

D. South Carolina

Shuler v. Orangeburg County Sheriff's Department

DecidedJanuary 28, 2020

Docket5:19-cv-00088

StatusUnknown

This text of Shuler v. Orangeburg County Sheriff's Department (Shuler v. Orangeburg County Sheriff's Department) 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

Shuler v. Orangeburg County Sheriff's Department, (D.S.C. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Melodie Shuler, ) C/A No. 5:19-88-MGL-PJG ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Orangeburg County Sheriff’s Department; ) ORDER Sheriff Leroy Ravenell; Captain Antonia ) Turkvant; Chief Kenneth Kinsey; Captain ) Lacrea Jenkins; Lieutenant Coyler; Sergeant ) Allen Hunter; Franklin Ashley Williams; ) Michael Lawrence, John Stuke; Derek ) Howell; Andre Brisbon; Chris Powell; ) ) Defendants. ) )

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, has filed this action, pro se, seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Lawrence and Stuke1 filed a motion for summary judgment on December 19, 2019, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 59.) As the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on December 20, 2019, advising the plaintiff of the importance of a motion for summary judgment and of the need for her to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 62.) The plaintiff was specifically advised that if she failed to respond adequately, the defendants’ motion may be granted, thereby ending her case.

1 The court previously recommended that the remaining defendants be summarily dismissed without issuance and service of process. That Report and Recommendation remains pending. (ECF No. 34.) Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order, the plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion. As such, it appears to the court that she does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff shall advise the court as to whether she wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. Plaintiff is further advised that if she 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. Oda; sEbA— January 28, 2020 Vom QAysor— 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 ORANGEBURG DIVISION

Melodie Shuler, ) C/A No. 5:19-88-MGL-PJG ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Orangeburg County Sheriff’s Department; ) ORDER Sheriff Leroy Ravenell; Captain Antonia ) Turkvant; Chief Kenneth Kinsey; Captain ) Lacrea Jenkins; Lieutenant Coyler; Sergeant ) Allen Hunter; Franklin Ashley Williams; ) Michael Lawrence, John Stuke; Derek ) Howell; Andre Brisbon; Chris Powell; ) ) Defendants. ) )

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, has filed this action, pro se, seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Lawrence and Stuke1 filed a motion for summary judgment on December 19, 2019, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 59.) As the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on December 20, 2019, advising the plaintiff of the importance of a motion for summary judgment and of the need for her to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 62.) The plaintiff was specifically advised that if she failed to respond adequately, the defendants’ motion may be granted, thereby ending her case.

1 The court previously recommended that the remaining defendants be summarily dismissed without issuance and service of process. That Report and Recommendation remains pending. (ECF No. 34.) Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order, the plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion. As such, it appears to the court that she does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff shall advise the court as to whether she wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. Plaintiff is further advised that if she 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. Oda; sEbA— January 28, 2020 Vom QAysor— Columbia, South Carolina UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Shuler v. Orangeburg County Sheriff's Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shuler-v-orangeburg-county-sheriffs-department-scd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack