Norris v. McKie et al

Filing 39

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation proper and incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 8/16/2011. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Garron L. Norris,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Warden McKie; Warden Jauyner; and
Major Samuel Latta, III,
Defendants.
_______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 1:10-2853-JFA-SVH

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Garron L. Norris, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983.1 He in an inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections. In his
complaint, the plaintiff makes a variety of claims regarding his conditions of confinement.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 2 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to prosecute,
in accordance with Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Magistrate Judge
notes that the plaintiff was advised to keep the court apprised of his current address and that
the plaintiff failed to do so when an order of the court mailed to the plaintiff was returned to
the Clerk by the U.S. Postmaster.

1

The plaintiff has filed this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

2

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 and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

The defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. An order was then issued
pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying plaintiff of the
summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond
to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion.
The plaintiff was also advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on July 26, 2011. However, the plaintiff
did not file any objections to the Report within the time limits prescribed. 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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation proper and
incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice for
failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

August 16, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina

2