Brown v. Pathology Service Associates LLC

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING 39 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING 34 Defendant Pathology Service Associates LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment and DISMISSING this action with prejudice Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 4/16/2013. (sshe, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

Sylvia Brown,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Pathology Service Associates, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO.2:II-cv-3543-RMG

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on motion by Defendant Pathology Service Associates,
LLC, for summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. (Dkt. No. 34). After careful
review, the Court dismisses this action with prejudice.
This action was originally filed on December 29, 2011. (Dkt. No.1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC, this case was assigned to a Magistrate Judge.
Though Plaintiff was initially represented by counsel, her counsel was granted leave to withdraw on
May 16,2012. (Dkt. No. 16). Since then, Plaintiff has proceeded pro se.
On March 25,2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R")
recommending that this action "be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure
to comply with this 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)."
(Dkt. No. 39 at 1-2). Plaintiff failed to file any objections to that R&R.
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.

Mathewsv. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,270-71 (1976). Nevertheless, in the absence ofspecific objections
to the R&R, this Court need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's analysis
and recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's analysis and concludes that it correctly
applies the applicable law to the operative facts. In particular, the Court notes that, despite repeated
entreaties and direct instructions by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff has not filed any pleading since
June 15,2012, when she originally expressed her desire to proceed pro se. (Dkt. No. 20).
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation,
GRANTS Defendant Pathology Service Associates, LLC' s motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. No.
34), and dismisses this action with prejudice.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Gergel
United States District

I"

Charleston, South Carolina
2013
April

-2­