English v. Livingstone et al
ORDER RULING adopting 61 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 7/25/2017. (mwal)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Roderick Jerome English, #301507,
Cpt. Livingstone; Sgt. Walker; Warden Lewis;
Warden Washington; Warden Stephen; Brian
Sterling; Warden Larry Cartledge; Warden
Moody; Officer Purcuci; and Michael McCall,
C/A No. 1:16-2985-JFA-SVH
The pro se plaintiff, Roderick Jerome English, is an inmate with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (“SCDC”). He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging various claims relating to his confinement.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should dismiss the action for lack of
prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment, however, the plaintiff did not respond to the motion.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 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
An order was 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 Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the
court incorporates such without a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on June 30, 2017. However, the plaintiff
did not file objections and the time within which to do so has now expired. 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).
The Magistrate Judge has allowed the plaintiff ample time to respond to the court’s
orders and the plaintiff has failed to do so.
This court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the plaintiff meets all of the criteria
for dismissal under Rule 41(b). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989), Davis
v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1978).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 25, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
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?