counsel if the court gives clear notice of the need to file affidavits or other responsive materials and of the consequences of default.”); Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100, 102 (7th Cir.1982) (“[W]e think it appropriate to lay down a general rule that a prisoner who is a plaintiff in a civil case and is not represented by counsel is entitled to receive notice of the consequences of falling to respond with affidavits to a motion for summary judgment.”); Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir.1975) (requiring that the “plaintiff be advised of his right to file counter-affidavits or other responsive material and alerted to the fact that his failure to so respond might result in the entry of summary judgment against him”); Hudson v. Hardy, 412 F.2d 1091, 1094 (D.C.Cir.1968) (<HOLDING>); see also Jaxon, 773 F.2d at 1140 (citing some
holding that where the recipient is a federal prisoner the government is required to provide him with actual notice of a deprivation holding that court had no obligation to inform pro se litigant of procedural requirements due to clear evidence in record including inter alia defendants mention of requirements in summary judgment motion that litigant knew requirements holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond holding that at a bare minimum the district court was required to provide a pro se prisoner with fair notice of the summary judgment rule requirements holding that a pro se prisoner complaint is deemed filed as of the date the prisoner gives the complaint to prison officials to be forwarded to the court