Hanna v. Huddle House et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 47 Report and Recommendation, and finding as moot 30 Motion to Dismiss, filed by John Susigan, Huddle House. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 1/19/17. (mflo, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Lavonne Monique Hanna,
C/A No. 0:16-752-JFA-KDW
Huddle House and John Susigan,
On March 9, 2016, Lavonne Monique Hanna (“Plaintiff”) filed this action pursuant to Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ECF No. 1. In addition, Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, ECF No. 2, which was granted on March 18, 2016, by
Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, ECF No. 10. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 19.
On July 19, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ECF No. 30. On July 20, 2016, the
Magistrate Judge issued an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975),
explaining the importance of Defendants’ motion and providing Plaintiff with thirty-four days to
file an adequate response in opposition to the motion. ECF Nos. 33–34. However, despite
numerous extensions provided by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’
motion. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 41, 44. Thus, the Magistrate Judge issued an order allowing Plaintiff
until December 14, 2016, to advise in writing whether she wished to continue with her case and
file a response to Defendants’ motion. ECF No. 44. In addition, the Magistrate Judge noted that
Plaintiff had been given twenty-one (21) weeks to file a response to Defendants’ motion and
advised Plaintiff that no further extensions would be provided. Id. Furthermore, Plaintiff was
advised that if she failed to respond, the Magistrate Judge would recommend her complaint be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Davis v.
Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978)).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s case. ECF No.
47. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this
Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation. The parties were advised of their
right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on December 16, 2016. ECF Nos.
47–48. The Magistrate Judge gave the parties until January 3, 2017, to file objections; however,
no objections were filed. Thus, this matter is ripe for the Court’s review.
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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections to the Report
of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
“[F]ederal courts possess the inherent authority . . . to dismiss a lawsuit sua sponte for
failure to prosecute.” United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 236 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Link
v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962)). “Inherent powers are ‘governed not by rule or
statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). 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 orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Id. Due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to
Defendants’ motion or object to the Magistrate Judge’s orders for several months despite the
warnings she has received of the possible consequences, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to
prosecute her case and this Court has the inherent power to dismiss same. Link, 370 U.S. at 629–
31; Custer v. Pan Am. Life Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 410, 415–16 (4th Cir. 1993); See D.S.C. Local Rule
7.06. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has abandoned her suit and good cause exists to
dismiss this action.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the Report,
this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts
and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 47) and dismisses Plaintiff’s case with prejudice.2 Therefore,
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 30) is deemed moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 19, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
The Court declines to dismiss this action based upon Defendants’ motion to dismiss and rather deems it
appropriate to do so on the premise that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute her case.
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?