Robinson v. Cannon

Filing 39

ORDER adopting 35 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks. This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 12/14/11.(hhil, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Terrence Bowie Robinson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
John Doe; Richard Roe,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 2:10-2236-JFA-BHH

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that while
he was a pretrial detainee at the Charleston County Detention Center, he was kept
incarcerated for three days more than necessary.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that this matter should be dismissed for lack of prosecution
under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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 Magistrate Judge issued an order on October 31, 2011, allowing the plaintiff to
notify the court of his intent to proceed with this action. The order was returned by the U.S.
Postmaster and it appears that the plaintiff is no longer incarcerated.

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).

1

The plaintiff was mailed a copy of the Report and Recommendation, which was filed
on November 28, 2011, and advised of his right to file objections to the Report. The
plaintiff, however, did not file objections to the Report. 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).
Moreover, the envelope containing the copy of the Report was returned by the U.S.
Postmaster marked “Returned to Sender: Unable to Identify, Forwarding Order Expired.”
The plaintiff has been advised by order of the court that he must keep the court
advised at all times of his current address. The plaintiff has failed to do so, and the court has
no way to communicate with the plaintiff.
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 for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 14, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2