Muhammad v. Aiken Public Safety et al

Filing 18

ORDER adopting 15 Report and Recommendation and dismissing case without prejudice under under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 4/11/2018. (mwal)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION HONORABLE JAMES MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff, § § § vs. § § AIKEN PUBLIC SAFETY; AIKEN § SHERIFF’S DEPT.; AIKEN DETENTION § CENTER; JUST CARE; SOCIAL SECURITY § PAYMENT CENTER; and DOCTOR C-L, § Defendants. § CIVIL ACTION 1:18-0253-MGL ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Plaintiff Honorable James Muhammad, who is proceeding pro se, filed this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting this action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on March 23, 2018, but Muhammad failed to file any objections. “[I]n 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 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 11th day of April, 2018, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date of this Order pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2

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?