Stewart v. Jenkins et al
Filing
50
ORDER AND OPINION adopting 47 Report and Recommendations. It is therefore ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with court orders pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 06/12/2019.(hada, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Lamarcus Alexander Stewart, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Richard Jenkins, Anita James, John R.
Pate, Walter Worrick, McKendley
Newton,
Defendants.
________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 2:17-2637-BHH
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff Lamarcus Alexander Stewart, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se brought this
civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina, this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for pretrial handling. The
matter is now before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
issued by the Magistrate Judge on May 23, 2019. (ECF No. 47.) In her Report, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that the action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of
prosecution and for failure to comply with court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b). Objections to the Report were due by June 10, 2019.
“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.” See 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Id. at 630.
Plaintiff has filed no objections. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report, this Court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Where no
objections have been filed, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and advisory committee’s note). Plaintiff has
failed to prosecute this case and failed to comply with this Court’s orders. As such, the
Court finds that this case should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court adopts the Report. It is therefore ORDERED that this action
is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with court
orders pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
June 12, 2019
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2
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?