O'Martin v. Martin et al

Filing 37

ORDER adopting 35 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, dismissing this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with this Court's orders. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 2/7/13.(hhil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
KENDRICK O’MARTIN a/k/a
KENDRICK O’SHAY MARTIN,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ARTHENIA MARTIN; R.L.
)
TURNER; MR. MAUHABWA; S.C. )
DEPT. CORRECTIONS; AND
)
GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR,
)
PCI,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Civil Action No.: 2:12-cv-00522-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Kendrick O’Martin, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The above-captioned Defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, made in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice for failure
to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P 41(b).
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 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 with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 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 reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond
v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a
timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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’ ”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated
by reference. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. All pending motions
are deemed moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
February 7, 2013
Florence, South Carolina

2