Baxter v. Arwood et al

Filing 36

ORDER adopting 34 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, dismissing this action with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 11/8/12.(hhil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Levantis Denard Baxter,

) Civil Action No.: 2:12-1005-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
ORDER
)
Freddie Arwood, Bruce Bryant, Donna
)
Leslie, Richard Martin, and Amy Sturgis,
)
et al., individual capacities,
)
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________
Plaintiff Levantis Denard Baxter (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 12, 2012, alleging violations of his constitutional
rights. (ECF No. 1.) At the time of the underlying events, Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee
incarcerated at the York County Detention Center. This matter is now before the court upon
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed on October 11, 2012,
recommending this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to prosecute the case. (ECF No. 34.) More
specifically, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Orders of August 7, 2012, (ECF
No. 29) and September 14, 2012, (ECF No. 31) directing Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment filed on August 6, 2012. (ECF No. 28.)

In accordance

with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks for pretrial handling. The Magistrate
Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.

The recommendation has no

presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this
court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Report and Recommendation

or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of
the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. Plaintiff was
advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 34 at
2.) However, he has not done so and objections were due on October 28, 29012. 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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and this
action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
November 8, 2012