Newsome v. Sterling
ORDER accepting 32 Report and Recommendation and dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 4/11/2017. (mwal)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Bryan P. Sterling, Commissioner of the
South Carolina Department of Corrections, )
C/A No.: 1:16-1607-TLW-SVH
Plaintiff Buddy Newsome, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. ECF No. 1.
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed by
United States Magistrate Judge Hodges to whom this case was previously assigned. ECF No. 32.
In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure
to prosecute pursuant to Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir 1978), and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b). No objections were filed and the time to do so has expired.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence
of objections to the R&R, 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).
This Court carefully reviewed the record in this case and the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, and
notes that Plaintiff filed no objections. After appropriate consideration, the Magistrate Judge’s
R&R is hereby ACCEPTED. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the case is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
April 11, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
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?