Koon v. Byars et al

Filing 37

ORDER adopting 34 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks; finding as moot 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; finding as moot 16 Motion for Hearing; finding as moot 28 Motion for Summary Judgment. It is ordered that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 8/16/2013.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Robert Koon a/k/a Robert Holland
Koon a/k/a Robert H. Koon,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Director William B. Byars, Jr., et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)

Civil Action No.: 2:12-cv-03213-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Robert Koon, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action, alleging
constitutional claims.

The matter is now 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. 1 The
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice for failure
to prosecute.
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).

1

Defendants had filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 28), to which Plaintiff failed to
respond.

Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The mail sent by the
Court to Plaintiff, which enclosed the Report and Recommendation, was “Returned to Sender” as
“Refused.” 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 be DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to
prosecute. All pending motions are DEEMED moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
August 16, 2013

2