Peterson v. Anderson et al

Filing 47

ORDER adopting and incorporating the 43 Report and Recommendation and dismissing this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable Timothy M. Cain on 2/25/2019. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Robbie Wayne Peterson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Mjr. Steven Anderson,
Sgt. George Moss,
Joseph Camp, and
Cherokee County,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 0:18-997-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff Robbie Wayne Peterson, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). On February 4, 2019, Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett issued a
Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that this action be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 43).1 Plaintiff was advised of his right to file
objections to the Report. (ECF No. 43 at 4). However, Plaintiff has not filed any objections to
the Report and the time for doing so has expired.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (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

1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., all pre-trial
proceedings were referred to a magistrate judge.

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 the
district court’s judgment based upon that recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 43) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, this action is
DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See Ballard v.
Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
February 25, 2019

2