Dye v. Great Falls, Town of

Filing 59

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 56 Report and Recommendation, dismissing the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 07/17/2013. (bshr, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

David Lee Dye,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Town of Great Falls, Sanitation Department,
Defendant.
_____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 0:12-2624-JFA-PJG

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, David Lee Dye, brings this action against the defendant alleging
employment discrimination. The defendant has moved for summary judgment. Despite two
orders advising the plaintiff of his right to respond to the motion, the plaintiff has failed to
do so.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that the complaint should be dismissed in accordance with 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
and without a hearing.
The plaintiff was also advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on June 24, 2013. However, the plaintiff

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 and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

did not file any objections to the Report within the time limits prescribed.
In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court
is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation proper and
incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice under
Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

July 17, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

2