Holmes v. Karafa et al

Filing 33

ORDER adopting 29 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; denying as moot 18 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/2/2015.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
George Holmes,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Cpl. Karafa, Jessica Desantis, and
Pfc. K. Shew,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 2:14-3511-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, George Holmes, 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 Plaintiff’s action be
dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff has not filed any
objections to the Report. In fact, the Report, which was mailed to Plaintiff’s last known address,
was returned as undeliverable and marked “inmate released.”
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).

1

After a thorough review of the record in this case, the court adopts the Report (ECF No.
29) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 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). Further, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18) is DENIED
as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
February 2, 2015
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.

2