 30, 2019
GREGORY BENJAMIN, Plaintiff,v.TONY CHAVIS AND JOHN SPECHT, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THOMAS
E. ROGERS, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff,
who is proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging that
Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Presently
before the court are Defendants' Motions for Summary
Judgment (ECF Nos. 56 and 62). Because Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, he was advised on August 12, 2019, and
August 26, 2019, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison,
528 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), that a failure to respond to
the motions could result in dismissal of his case. A response
to Defendant Chavis's Motion for Summary Judgment was due
by September 12, 2019, add an additional three days if served
by mail, and a response to Defendant Specht's Motion for
Summary Judgment by September 26, 2019, add an additional
three days if served by mail. Plaintiff failed to file a
response to either motion. All pretrial proceedings in this
case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), DSC. respond to the Motions for Summary
Judgment despite the court's warnings that a failure to
do so may result in dismissal. Accordingly, the undersigned
concludes that Plaintiff has abandoned his claims against
Defendants.
In the
alternative, the motions for summary judgment are discussed
below.
III.
STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The
federal court is charged with liberally construing the
complaints filed by pro s e litigants, to allow them
to fully develop potentially meritorious cases. See C r u
z