Curry v. South Carolina, State of
Filing
38
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 34 Report and Recommendations, dismissing action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute, terminating 25 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, and terminating 24 Motion to Dismiss filed by Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 10/27/2011. (jpet, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Thaddeus Lorenzo Curry,
)
) C/A No. 0:11-0677-MBS
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ORDER
Warden of Lieber Correctional
)
Institution,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)
Petitioner Thaddeus Lorenzo Curry is an inmate in custody of the South Carolina Department
of Corrections (SCDC). On March 21, 2011, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial handling. On July 29, 2011,
Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. On August 1, 2011, in accordance with Roseboro
v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), Petitioner was advised of the summary judgment
procedures and the possible consequences of failing to respond adequately. Petitioner filed no
response to the motion for summary judgment. On September 9, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued
an order directing Petitioner to file a response to Respondent’s motion within fourteen days.
Petitioner was advised that his failure to respond would subject his case to dismissal with prejudice
for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Petitioner filed no response. Accordingly, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on September 28, 2011 in which she
recommended that the within § 2254 petition be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Petitioner filed
no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is
made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de
novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge. The court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by
reference. The within action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to
prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
October 27, 2011
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Petitioner is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?