McCoy v. Metts

Filing 31

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks re 29 Report and Recommendations. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the courts orders. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 9/1/11.(hhil, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

Michael Alexander McCoy,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
James Metts, in charge of Lexington
)
County Detention Center,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No.: 2:11-cv-00154-JMC
ORDER

This matter is now before the court for review on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation [Doc 29], filed on August 11, 2011, recommending the court dismiss this action
with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s orders, pursuant to
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing
Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir.1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir.
1989). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he alleges
various constitutional violations regarding his conditions of incarceration. [Doc. 1]. The Report and
Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the
court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
1

U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s recitation of the procedural
history and facts of this case. [Doc. 29].
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation [Doc.
29 at 3]. However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
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
advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and
Recommendation results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District
Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th
Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the
court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 29] and incorporates it
herein. It is therefore ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of

2

prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/J. Michelle Childs
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
September 1, 2011

3