Goss v. Stonebreaker
Filing
26
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 23), and the Court dismisses this action with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the Court's orders, pursuant to 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). Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 1/28/2025. (dgar)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Darrell L. Goss,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Warden Donnie E. Stonebreaker,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________ )
Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-1424-BHH
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Darrell L. Goss’s pro se (“Plaintiff”)
complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 30, 2024, Defendant filed a
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 18.) Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the
Court issued an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975),
advising Plaintiff of the need to file a response to Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 19.)
Plaintiff’s response was due by December 2, 2024, but he failed to respond. The Court
then issued an order extending Plaintiff’s time to respond to December 23, 2024, and
specifically advising Plaintiff that this action could be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if he failed to respond. (ECF No. 21.) Despite this
warning, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s motion.
Accordingly, on January 2, 2025, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker issued
a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the
Court dismiss this action with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with
the Court’s orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF
No. 23.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the
right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a
copy. To date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are 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). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident 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 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court has reviewed
the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates
the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 23), and the Court dismisses this action with
prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the Court’s orders,
pursuant to 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).
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
January 28, 2025
Charleston, South Carolina
3
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?