Rainey v. Clark

Filing 28

ORDER adopting the 23 Report and Recommendation and dismissing the Complaint with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Donald C. Coggins, Jr. on 3/15/2018. (bgoo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Larry Jerome Rainey,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
Sgt. D. Clark,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

C/A No. 0:17-cv-02773-DCC

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging violations of civil rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J.
Gossett for pre-trial proceedings. On November 20, 2017, after learning that Plaintiff died in prison,
the Magistrate issued an order directing the appropriate party for the decedent to file a motion for
substitution pursuant to Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within 90 days of the date
of that order.1 ECF No. 12. There was no response to the order. On February 21, 2018, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that this action
be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 25. ECF No. 14. The Magistrate Judge
advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the
serious consequences if he failed to do so. Neither plaintiff nor any appropriate party has filed
objections, and the time to do so has passed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has

1

The Magistrate Judge’s Report notes that the order was sent to Plaintiff’s last address
and to his next of kin as provided by the South Carolina Department of Corrections.

no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See U.S.C.
§ 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in
the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)).
After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate
Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report’s recommendation that the
Complaint be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. The
Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
March 15, 2018
Spartanburg, South Carolina