Tinsley v. South Carolina Department of Probation Parole and Pardon Services et al

Filing 66

ORDER adopting 63 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 3/22/2018.(ssam, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
James Tinsley,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Larry Ray Patton, Jr.; David Baxter; Marvin
)
Stevenson; Henry Eldridge; Thomas Hallam; John )
Doe,
)
)
Defendants.
__________________________________________

C/A No. 2:16-cv-00996-DCC

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. ECF No. 1. This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
which was filed on December 4, 2017. ECF No. 54. A Roseboro order was entered by the Court
and mailed to Plaintiff, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and the need for
Plaintiff to file an adequate response. ECF No. 55. Plaintiff filed no response to the motion for
summary judgment.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for pre-trial proceedings
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On February 27, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report recommending that the case be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders pursuant
to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 63. Plaintiff was advised of his
right to file objections to the Report; Plaintiff failed to file objections and the time to do so has
lapsed.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this 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 U.S.C.
§ 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in
the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)).
“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been
considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested
in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962). As well as inherent authority, this
Court may sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b). Id. at 630.
After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate
Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report’s recommendation. Accordingly,
the Court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 22, 2017
Spartanburg, South Carolina

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge