Lott v. Tross et al

Filing 52

ORDER AND OPINION adopting 49 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; denying as moot 36 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 40 Motion for a Direct Order on Motion to Compel; denying as moot 27 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 3/23/2017.(ssam, )

USOC CLE~I~EIVED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · HARlESTON.SC
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA?OI1 HAR 23 PH I: 51
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Mark Tillman Lott,
Plaintiff,

v.
Dr. Rozanna Tross Psy,
Joshua Tucker,
Cynathia Helff,
Kimberly Poholchuk,
Holly Scaturo,
Shelia Lindsey,
Versie Bellamy
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No 2: 16-cv-01586-RMG-MGB

ORDER AND OPINION

Mark Tillman Lott ("Plaintiff'), is currently in the custody of the Sexually Violent Predator
Treatment Program ("SVPTP") of the South Carolina Department of Mental Health, having been
civilly committed as a sexually violent predator under the South Carolina Sexually Violent
Predator Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-10 through § 44-48-70. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis, filed this action in May 2016, alleging that Defendants discriminated against
him and violated his First Amendment rights. (Dkt. No.1.) This Court construes Plaintiffs
action to be filed under 42 U.S.c. § 1983.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R.") of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 49) to dismiss this action with prejudice for lack of prosecution and
for failure to comply with this Court's orders under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th
Cir. 1982) (per curiam). See Ballardv. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989). The
Magistrate has also recommended that Plaintiffs pending motions be denied as moot. (Dkt. Nos.
27,40.)
-1-

No objections to the R. & R. have been filed. While this Court will conduct a de novo
review of any portion of the R. & R. to which a specific objection is made, it appears Congress
did not intend for the district court to review the Magistrate's factual and legal conclusions
absent objection by any party. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). This
Court's review of the record indicates that the R. & R. accurately analyzes the facts of this case
and the applicable law.
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate's R. & R. (Dkt. No. 49) as the Order of this
Court. Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. No.1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Plaintiffs pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 27, 40) and Defendants' motion for summary
judgment (Dkt. No. 36) are DENIED AS MOOT.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge

March~, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

-2-