Clark v. Hawkins et al
ORDER adopting 41 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; denying as moot 30 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 33 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court DISMISSES this case with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 7/10/2017.(ssam, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jervon R. Clark,
Cecil R. Hawkins, Dentist; Amy R. Enloe, )
Nurse Practitioner; and Lindsey R. Harris, )
Registered Nurse, in their individual
Civil Action No.: 2:16-cv-02913-RBH
Plaintiff Jervon R. Clark, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against the above-captioned Defendants. The matter is before the Court for review of
the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker, made
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). See R & R,
ECF No. 41. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with
court orders. R & R at 2.
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 this Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit
the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
No parties have filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection,
a district court need not conduct 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
72 advisory committee’s note)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and hereby
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 41] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court DISMISSES this case with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The
Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ motions for summary judgment [ECF Nos. 30 & 33].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
July 10, 2017
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Plaintiff’s objections were due by June 22, 2017. See ECF No. 41.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?