Crockett v. Waldrop et al

Filing 37

ORDER NOT ADOPTING 33 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiff wishes to continue to prosecute this action. The Clerk is directed to return file back to Magistrate Judge for further handling. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 04/09/2013. (ttil, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Johnny W. Crockett, Plaintiff, vs. Detective J. Waldrop, Defendant. ______________________________________ ) C/A No. 0:12-1744-JFA-SVH ) ) ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) The pro se plaintiff, Johnny W. Crockett, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that he was falsely arrested without probable cause by the defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should dismiss the action for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation. The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on March 20, 2013. On April 2, 2013, 1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). the plaintiff mailed a document to the court indicating that he needs a postponement from the rulings from the court. He indicates that he also has pending an Application for Post Conviction relief, presumably in state court, and that he “mixed up the deadlines.” He indicates that he does not wish to dismiss this action. Because it now appears that the plaintiff wishes to continue to prosecute this action, the Court will not adopt the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is requested to return this file back to the Magistrate Judge for further handling. IT IS SO ORDERED. April 9, 2013 Columbia, South Carolina Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge

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?