Filyaw v. Graham et al

Filing 87

ORDER adopting the Report and Recommendation 83 , dismissing the action with prejudice, and terminating all pending motions 13 and 74 . Signed by Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 5/31/2017. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
William Fate Filyaw,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Kontrina Graham, (Sgt); William Eagleton; )
(Warden),
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 0:16-cv-02952-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett’s Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 83), filed on May 2, 2017, recommending that Plaintiff
William Fate Filyaw’s action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), as he failed to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 74).
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this court, which has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this court. 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 Report to which
specific objections are made.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 83-1).
However, neither party filed any objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199

1

(4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of
the right to appeal from the judgment of the district court based upon such recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report
provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and does not contain clear error. The court
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 83) and DISMISSES
this action WITH PREJUDICE. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
May 31, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

1

The Magistrate Judge’s Report also recommended that the court terminate any pending motions.
The court finds no clear error in this recommendation and DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to
terminate Plaintiff’s Motion for Order of Protection and Restraining Order (ECF No. 13) and
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 74.)
2