Smyth v. Urch et al

Filing 174

ORDER adopting 170 Report and Recommendation, dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute as to defendants Neal Urch, Deputy J. Brock, and Deputy K. Ashley, and denying the Defendants' 158 Motion for Summary Judgment as moot. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 3/22/2016. (bgoo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Keith Adger Smyth,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Neal Urch, Deputy J. Brock, and
)
Deputy K. Ashley,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No.: 0:14-cv-03476-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Keith Adger Smyth, a state pretrial detainee1 proceeding pro se, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above named Defendants alleging violations of his
constitutional rights. See ECF Nos. 1 & 13. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report
and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.2 See R & R,
ECF No. 170. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court dismiss this action with prejudice for
failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and terminate any pending
motions. Id. at 2.
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 this Court.

1

Plaintiff is now incarcerated at Broad River Correctional Institution, a state prison located in Columbia,
South Carolina. ECF No. 148.

2

The Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The Court is mindful of its duty to liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). But see Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278
(4th Cir. 1985) (“Principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints are not, however, without limits.
Gordon directs district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally. It does not require those courts to conjure up
questions never squarely presented to them.”).

See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R 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 with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
No parties have filed objections to the R & R. In the absence of objections to the R & R, the
Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in
the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly,
the Court adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 170] of the Magistrate Judge. It
is therefore ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute
and that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 158] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
March 22, 2016

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

2