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, )

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