Gibson v. Jacobs et al

Filing 43

ORDER AND OPINION adopting the 39 Report and Recommendation, dismissing the action with prejudice for lack of prosecution, and terminating the 31 motion for summary judgment. Signed by Honorable Richard M. Gergel on 4/24/2017. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

ROCK HILL DIVISION

Nathaniel Gibson,
Plaintiff,

v.
Doctor Theodolph Jacobs; Licensed
Practical Nurse Travato,

Defendants.

Case No 0: 16-cv-2296-RMG

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER AND OPINION

Nathaniel Gibson ("Plaintiff'), proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. On February 3, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
(Dkt. No. 31.) Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the Magistrate's

Roseboro order (Dkt. No. 33), Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R.") of the
Magistrate Judge to dismiss this action with prejudice for lack of prosecution. (Dkt. No. 39.) The
Magistrate mailed the R. & R. to Plaintiff on April 4, 2017, indicating that Plaintiffs objections
were due by April 18, 2017. (Dkt. No. 40.) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, Plaintiff
had an additional three days (until April 21, 2017) to file his objections to the R. & R because it
was served by mail. As of April 21, 2017, no objections to the R. & R. were filed.
While this Court will conduct a de novo review of any portion of the R. & R. to which a
specific objection is made, it appears Congress did not intend for the district court to review the
factual and legal conclusions of the Magistrate absent objection by any party. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(l); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). This Court's review of the record indicates that
the R. & R. accurately analyzes the facts of this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, this

-1­

Court adopts the Magistrate's R. & R. as the Order of this Court. This action is dismissed with
prejudice for lack of prosecution. Accordingly, defendants' pending motion for summary

judgment is terminated. (Dkt. No. 31.)

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court Judge

J /,

April J..
2017
Charleston, South Carolina

-2­