Brooks v. Govan et al

Filing 31

ORDER adopting 27 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks dismissing this case with prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with this Court's orders. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 1/18/12.(hhil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Bevan Xavier Brooks, Sr.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Cpt. Charles Govan, Ms. Sabasco,
)
Ofc McDuffe, Ofc Rhodan, Ofc Jamison, )
Ofc Hampton, and Chief Horace James,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 2:11-cv-1670-TLW-BHH

ORDER
On July 12, 2011, the plaintiff, Bevan Xavier Brooks, Sr. (“plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. # 1). The case was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC.
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) filed by the Magistrate Judge to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. # 27).
On December 1, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that the District Court dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this Court’s orders.
(Doc. # 27). The plaintiff filed no objections to the Report. Objections were due on December 19,
2011.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
1

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. §
636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation 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).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. It
is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 27). For the
reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this
Court’s orders.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
January 18, 2012
Florence, South Carolina

1

On October 13, 2011, the defendants moved for summary judgment. (Doc. # 23). On
October 26, 2011, an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), was
mailed to the plaintiff’s last known address. (Docs. 24, 25). The envelope containing this order was
returned to the Court as the plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at Orangeburg-Calhoun Regional
Detention Center. (Doc. # 26). The Report and Recommendation also was mailed to the plaintiff’s
last known address and returned as undeliverable. (Docs. 28, 29).
2