Pellegrino v. Southern Health Partners et al
ORDER adopting the 61 Report and Recommendation, dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and denying as moot Defendants' 43 motion to dismiss and 52 motion for summary judgment. Signed by Honorable R. Bryan Harwell on 6/2/2017. (bgoo)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
John Louis Pellegrino,
Southern Health Partners, Krystal
Snuggs, and Jennifer Williams,
Civil Action No.: 0:16-cv-03083-RBH
Plaintiff John Louis Pellegrino, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
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. See R & R, ECF No. 61. The Magistrate Judge recommends
dismissing this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b). R & R 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.
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,1 and the time for doing so has expired.2 In the
The Clerk mailed Plaintiff a copy of the R & R on May 1, 2017. ECF No. 62. On May 9, 2017, that mailing
was returned as undeliverable; the envelope was stamped “Return to Sender” / “Attempted – Not Known” / “Unable
to Forward.” ECF No. 63-1. As the Magistrate Judge explains in Footnote 1 of the R & R, she issued an order at
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 and hereby
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 61] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court DISMISSES this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b). The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 43]
and motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 52].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
June 2, 2017
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
the beginning of this case notifying Plaintiff of his obligation to keep the Court apprised of his current address and
the consequences of failing to do so. See ECF No. 8 at 3.
Plaintiff’s objections were due by May 18, 2017. See ECF No. 61.
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?