Green v. Cartledge et al

Filing 35

ORDER adopting 33 Report and Recommendation. This action is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 6/23/2014.(ssam, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Kendall Green,
Plaintiff,
v.
Larry Cartledge, Warden; Sgt. Daniel Cotter,
Contraband Officer; Major Early; and
William R. Byars, Director,

) Civil Action No.2:13-2426-MGL
)
)
)
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
)
)

Defendants.
__________________________________
Plaintiff Kendall Green (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed this action on
September 9, 2013 against Larry Cartledge, Warden; Sgt. Daniel Cotter, Contraband Officer; Major
Early; and William R. Byars, Director (“Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his constitutional rights. (ECF No.1.) This matter is now before the Court upon the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation filed on June 2, 2014, recommending this case be
dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that
Plaintiff failed to comply with this Court’s orders. (ECF No. 33.) More specifically, Plaintiff failed
to comply with this Court’s orders of February 3, 2014 and May 7, 2014. (ECF Nos. 23 & 31)
directing Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed on February 3,
2014. (ECF No. 22.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to a United States Magistrate Judge 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
(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 and the possible serious consequences
if he failed to respond. (ECF No 23.) However, he has not done so and objections were due on June
19, 2014. 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).
In light of the above standard, and after a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and
the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds no clear error. Finding the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation to be proper, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference
and this action is DISMISSED 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
June 23, 2014

-2-