Pressey v. Lowes Home Center, LLC

Filing 28

ORDER adopting 24 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 9/27/18.(mflo, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION

Sarah Pressey,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
Lowes Home Center, LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No.: 1:18-1115-JFA-PJG

ORDER

Sarah Pressey (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, originally filed this personal injury action
against Lowes Home Center, LLC (“Defendant”) in state court. Defendant removed this personal
injury action from the Aiken County Court of Common Pleas.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation
and opines that this action should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure because Plaintiff has failed to respond to two orders issued by the
Magistrate Judge. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter, and the Court incorporates such without a recitation. By orders dated May 2, 2018 and July
3, 2018, the Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to submit fully completed and signed answers to
the Court’s interrogatories pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.01 (D.S.C.). (ECF Nos. 11 & 17). In
the Magistrate Judge’s second order, Plaintiff was warned that her failure to comply with the

1

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 and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Magistrate Judge’s two orders would result in the dismissal of her case. To date, Plaintiff has not
only failed to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s two orders, she has failed to provide any
response.
Plaintiff was advised of her right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation,
which was entered on the docket on September 7, 2018. (ECF No. 24). The Magistrate Judge
required Plaintiff to file objections by September 21, 2018. Id. However, Plaintiff did not file any

objections. 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).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report and
Recommendation, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately
summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is incorporated herein
by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 27, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

1

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

In light of the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge dismissed Defendant’s Motion to
Amend the Scheduling Order and Motion to Compel Discovery as moot. (ECF Nos. 20& 22).