Washington et al v. South Carolina, State of et al

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motions for leave to proceed ifp, to cease and desist per law, to restore title to plaintiffs per law, and to compensate plaintiffs per law are hereby rendered moot, for 19 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on October 28, 2013. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Clarence E. Washington and
Allison Washington,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
State of South Carolina; County of Aiken, )
South Carolina; and Wells Fargo NA,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 1:13-2230-TLW-PJG
ORDER

The Plaintiffs, Clarence E. Washington and Allison Washington (“plaintiffs”), brought this
action on August 19, 2013, alleging illegal foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings associated with
their residence. (Doc. #1).
This matter is now before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) filed on September 24, 2013 (Doc. #19) by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J.
Gossett, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (DSC). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Complaint in this matter be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process
for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with an Order of this Court. In the Report, the
Magistrate Judge further recommends that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. #2), Plaintiff’s Motion to Cease and Desist Per Law (Doc. #3), and Plaintiffs’
Motion to Restore Title to Plaintiffs Per Law (Doc. #4), and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compensate
Plaintiffs Per Law (Doc. #5) be denied and dismissed. Plaintiffs did not file objections to the
Report. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file objections expired on October 11, 2013. (See Doc. #19).

On August 20, 2013, this Court entered an Order directing Plaintiffs to provide the Court
with the necessary paperwork and information required to bring the above-captioned case into
proper form. (Doc. #11). Plaintiffs were specifically informed that the failure to provide the
necessary information within the timetable set forth in the Order would subject this case to dismissal
for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an Order of this Court pursuant to Rule 41 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Doc. #11). On August 20, 2013, a copy of the Order was
mailed to Plaintiffs at the mailing address Plaintiffs provided to the Court, and that mail was not
returned. (See Doc. #12). The Magistrate Judge entered the Report and Recommendation in this
case (Doc. #19), which was also mailed to Plaintiffs (see Doc. #20). Plaintiffs failed to file
objections to the Report recommending dismissal of the above-captioned case.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. §
636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation 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 has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
After careful consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
#19) is ACCEPTED.
Plaintiff has failed to respond to an Order of this Court and has failed to prosecute the
above-captioned case. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned case be
and is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for failure to

2

prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash
R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962).
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. #2), Plaintiff’s Motion to Cease and Desist Per Law (Doc. #3), and Plaintiffs’
Motion to Restore Title to Plaintiffs Per Law (Doc. #4), and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compensate
Plaintiffs Per Law (Doc. #5) be and are hereby rendered MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
October 28, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

3