Lowman v. Saluda County Jail et al
Filing
17
ORDER AND OPINION adopting the 12 Report and Recommendation and dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 7/23/2018. (bgoo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Abin Lee Lowman,
) Civil Action No. 1:18-1339-BHH
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
Saluda County Jail; Major J. Ergle; Capt. )
Kelly; Capt. Toby Horne; Lt. W.R.
)
Padgett; Lt. C.B. Padget; Ms. Morris; Ms. )
Smith; and Ms. L. Marshal,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )
Plaintiff Abin Lee Lowman (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se brought this civil action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina, this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pretrial handling. The matter is now before
this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) issued by the
Magistrate Judge on July 5, 2018. (ECF No. 12.) In her Report, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that the case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) because of the Plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his address.
Objections to the Report were due by July 23, 2018.
“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
(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.
On July 20, 2018, the envelope containing Plaintiff’s copy of the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 12) was returned to the Clerk of Court, marked “NO LONGER
AT THIS ADDRESS, RETURN TO SENDER, ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN, UNABLE TO FORWARD”
(ECF No. 14-1.) Plaintiff was advised by order filed June 12, 2018, of his responsibility to
notify the Court in writing if his address changed and that his case could be dismissed for
failing to comply with the Court's order. (ECF No. 8.)
Plaintiff has filed no objections. 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 of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court adopts the Report. It is therefore ORDERED that this action
is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
July 23, 2018
Greenville, South Carolina
2
*****
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.
3
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?