Johnson v. Haley et al

Filing 116

ORDER ACCEPTING 114 Report and Recommendation; it is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint [Dkt.No. 1 is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with this Court's orders. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 5/22/2013. (mbro, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Ronald Colonial Johnson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Ms. Nikki Haley, Governor; Mr. John R.
)
Pate, Warden; Ms. Cynthia Sanders,
)
Wardens Asst.; Mr. Arthur Jordan, Assoc. )
Warden; Ms. Derrick, Head Nurse; Ms.
)
Freeman, Postal Director; Mr. Jordan,
)
Assoc. Warden; Mr. Wackley, Contraband )
Sergeant; and Mr. William Byars, Director, )
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00507-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [Dkt. No. 114], filed on May 1, 2013, recommending that
Plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and for
failure to comply with this court’s orders. Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to
Title 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on
these matters which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's Report 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
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report 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

1

instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report [Dkt. No. 114 at 3].
However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report. In the absence of objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Report, 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 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).

Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, and the record in this case, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report
provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case and the record in this case.
The court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. No. 114].

For the reasons

articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt.
No. 1] is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with this
Court’s orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
May 22, 2013
2