Coleman v. Mount Pleasant Police Department, Town of et al
ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation and dismissing action with prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the court's orders. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 6/23/2017. (mwal)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
William T. Coleman,
Town of Mount Pleasant Police Department,
and Officer Thomas Plyler,
C/A No. 2:17-920-JFA-SVH
The pro se plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the Charleston County Detention Center.
He brought that action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should dismiss the action for lack of
prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Report sets
forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court
incorporates such without a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on May 15, 2017.
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02. 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.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report 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 to the Magistrate Judge
with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
plaintiff did not file objections and the time within which to do so has now expired. In
addition, the Report mailed to the plaintiff was returned to the Clerk’s Office by the U.S.
Postmaster as “Unable to forward.” In the absence of specific objections to the Report of
the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Magistrate Judge has allowed the plaintiff ample time to respond to the court’s
orders and the plaintiff has failed to do so. This court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
the petitioner meets all of the criteria for dismissal under Rule 41(b).
See Ballard v.
Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989), Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1978).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure
to comply with the court’s orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
June 23, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
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?