Barnette v. Gleich et al

Filing 73

ORDER adopting the Report and Recommendation re ECF No. 68 , dismissing the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as moot re ECF No. 60 and dismissing without prejudice this case for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 01/07/2025. (cpri) (Main Document 73 replaced on 1/7/2025 with corrected document at the direction of chambers). (cpri ). Modified on 1/7/2025 to edit docket text. (cpri)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Samuel Lamont Barnette,

vs.

Civil Action No. 0:23-cv-3890-CMC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

South Carolina Hwy. Patrol and Robert H.
Gleich, South Carolina State Trooper,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Complaint, alleging violations of his
constitutional rights by a South Carolina State Trooper. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on September 24, 2024. ECF No. 60.
The same day, the court issued a Roseboro order providing an explanation of summary judgment
procedures and directing Plaintiff to respond to the motion. ECF No. 61. Plaintiff did not file a
response. On October 30, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order directing Plaintiff to advise
the court whether he wishes to continue with the case and file a response to the motion for summary
judgment. ECF No. 66. Plaintiff was warned if he failed to respond, the court would recommend
the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
On December 9, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) recommending the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 68. The
Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to

the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. No party has filed objections, and
the time to do so has expired.
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. 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 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews 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 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.”) (citation omitted).
After a review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error, and agrees the motion for summary judgment
should be granted.

2

Accordingly, the court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. This case is dismissed
without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Columbia, South Carolina
January 7, 2025

1

s/Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is dismissed as moot.
3