Clyburn v. Huntley
Filing
31
ORDER adopting 26 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks; denying as moot 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. The action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 9/12/2013.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Demario Clyburn,
Plaintiff,
v.
Lt. Tonya Huntley,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No. 2:13-742-TMC
ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is
before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina (“Report”).
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
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 instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Magistrate Judge Hendricks recommends the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
(ECF No. 26). No objection has been filed to the Magistrate Judge’s 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the
court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26) and incorporates it
herein.
It appears the Plaintiff no longer wishes to prosecute this action.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). It is further ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 19) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
September 12, 2013
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?