Martin v. Broad River Corr Institution et al
ORDER adopting 39 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks; denying as moot 26 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/19/2013.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Alfred Donnie Martin, Jr.,
Major Sharon Sutton and Pvt. Jones,
Civil Action No. 2:13-1510-TMC
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a
magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the action be dismissed with prejudice for lack
of prosecution and failure to comply with this court’s orders. (ECF No. 39). Plaintiff was
advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 39 at 3). However, Plaintiff filed
no objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. 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 the record in this case, the court adopts the
magistrate judge’s Report (ECF No. 39) 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the
factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982). See
Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989). It is further ORDERED that Defendant
Sutton’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Court Judge
November 19, 2013
Anderson, South Carolina
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?