Wilson v. Eagleton et al
Filing
60
ORDER accepting the 56 Report and Recommendation, dismissing the action with prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b), and terminating all pending motions. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 5/22/2018. (bgoo)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dantwan A. Wilson,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Willie Eagleton, Warden; Edward Bittinger,
DHO Officer; Addison Waddell, Correctional
Officer; Fritz Ford, Captain; Pamela Oliver,
Counsel Substitute; Ms. Duressa Roberts,
Caseworker/Classification
Defendants.
______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No. 0:17-1196-JFA
ORDER
The pro se plaintiff is an inmate with the Evans Correctional Institution of the South
Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”). He brings that action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging various claims against the defendants and seeking money damages.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should dismiss the action pursuant to
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of prosecution.
1
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02. 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 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter,
and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The defendants filed motions for summary judgment. On January 18 and 19, 2018,
orders were issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying
the plaintiff of the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if the plaintiff
failed to adequately respond to the motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff did not
respond to the defendants’ motions.
On March 1, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued another order (ECF No. 53) advising
the plaintiff that it appeared to the court that he was not opposing the motions, that he wished
to abandon the action, and allowing the plaintiff an additional 14 days in which to file his
response to the defendants’ motions. The plaintiff was specifically warned that if he failed
to respond, the action would be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to
prosecution. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989); Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d
69 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Despite this second warning, the plaintiff still did
not respond.
The plaintiff was also advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on March 21, 2018 (ECF No. 56).
However, the plaintiff did not file objections and the time within which to do so has now
expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this
court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The court must “only satisfy itself that there
2
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).
The Magistrate Judge has allowed the plaintiff ample time to respond to the court’s
orders and the defendants’ motions yet the plaintiff has failed to do so. A review of the
docket reveals that the plaintiff has not notified the Clerk of any address change, nor has any
mail been returned to the Clerk from the U.S. Postmaster.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws and the record in this case, this court
accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and finds that that the Report
fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant
to Rule 41(b).
The Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
May 22, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina
3
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?