Jivers v. Lard et al
ORDER adopting 32 Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 12/22/2015. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Brian Lard, Lexington County Detention
Center; John Geitz, Lexington County
Detention Center; and James Davenport,
C/A No.: 1:15-1214-BHH
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff Jeremy Jivers (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment which
was filed on September 2, 2015. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff filed no response to the motion for
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation. On November 4, 2015, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the case be
dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (ECF No. 32.) The
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this
court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The
Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Report and Recommendation
or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C.
‘The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally
been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control
necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases.” See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31,
82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). As well as inherent authority, this Court may sua
sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Id. at 630.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 32 at 3.) The plaintiff filed no objections, and the time for
doing so expired on November 23, 2015. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to provide an explanation
for adopting the recommendation. 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 accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and advisory
committee’s note). Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court's orders. As such, the
Court finds that this case should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and this
action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
December 22, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?