Williams v. Morris

Filing 86

OPINION and ORDER adopting 83 Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 10/1/2013. (abuc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
) Civil Action No. 0:12-1749-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
Sergeant Larry Morris; Levern Cohen, )
OPINION AND ORDER
Warden at South Carolina Department of )
Corrections; Leon Simmons,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________ )
Myron Edsel Williams,

Plaintiff Myron Edsel Williams (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant
to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is now before the court
upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation filed on August 30, 2013, recommending
this case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to prosecute the case, and failed to comply with this court’s
orders. (ECF No. 83.) More specifically, Plaintiff failed to comply with this court’s orders of July
2, 2013 (ECF No. 76) and August 13, 2013 (ECF No. 80) directing Plaintiff to respond to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed on July 1, 2013. (ECF No. 75.) Plaintiff failed
to respond to the orders to provide a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
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. 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, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with

instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. Plaintiff
was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 83 at 3.)
However, he has not done so and objections were due on September 16, 2013. 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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and this action
is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
October 1, 2013

-2-