Brooks v. Major et al

Filing 60

ORDER accepting in substantial part 50 Report and Recommendation; finding as moot 43 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 52 Motion for Summary Judgment captioned "Dispositive Motion". The Court orders that Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 7/21/2016.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

Bevan Xavier Brooks, Sr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Director Simon Major, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:14-03851-TLW

ORDER

_______________________________
On October 2, 2014, Plaintiff Bevan Xavier Brooks, Sr., (“Plaintiff”), brought this civil
action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). The matter now comes before
this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation, (“the Report”), (ECF No. 50), filed on
January 19, 2016, by Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker, to whom this case had previously
been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be
dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other
cited authorities, for lack of prosecution; specifically, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with orders of
the Court directing him to submit an adequate, timely response to Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 43). Objections to the Report were due by February 5, 2016. (See
Doc. #50). Rather than file either an Objection to the Report or a belated response to Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgement, Plaintiff elected to submit a two paragraph, handwritten
document captioned “Dispositive Motion,” (ECF No. 52), in which Plaintiff offers neither legal
nor factual argument but instead simply asks to be permitted “to present this case to a jury” and
“to be able to be present in a recorded hearing so that he could show cause for the courts to rule in

1

favor of his requests.” See ECF No. 52 at pp. 1-2. On February 11, 2016, Defendants responded
in opposition to this filing, (ECF No. 53), and the matter is now ripe for decision by this Court.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection
is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made
by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). 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 standards set forth above, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the entire record,
including, in particular, the Magistrate Judge’s Report, Plaintiff’s “Dispositive Motion” and
Defendants’ response thereto. The Court has undertaken this de novo review, even though
Plaintiff’s filing is entirely non-specific in nature and fails to provide either an adequate response
to the Magistrate Judge’s Report or Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court
cannot find any grounds in Plaintiff’s filing to justify declining to accept the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation of dismissal based upon Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and comply with Court
orders. The Court will depart from the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation only in that it elects,
out of an abundance of caution and deference to the deference owed to pro se prisoner plaintiffs,
to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim without prejudice. The Court takes this unusual step in view, in
particular, of Plaintiff’s assertion in the last few lines of his “Dispositive Motion” that he is

2

“currently under the influence of mental health medications and suffering from a serious mental
condition that prevents him from normal abilities as all other persons.” See ECF No. 52 at p. 2.
In view of all of the above, therefore, the Court ACCEPTS in substantial part the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, (ECF No. 50), and orders that Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED
without prejudice.

Both Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 43), and

Plaintiff’s “Dispositive Motion,” (ECF No. 52), are properly terminated as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Terry L. Wooten
TERRY L. WOOTEN
United States District Judge

July 21, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

3