Brown v. Singleton et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), for 16 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on April 9, 2010. (kbos)

Download PDF
U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF SOUTH CAROLINA D o n e ll Brown, #293480, P l a in tif f , vs. S h irle y Singleton; Libby Priester; and George T. Hagan, D e f e n d a n ts . _____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No. 3:09-2546-JFA-JRM ORDER T h e pro se plaintiff, Donell Brown, brings this action pursuant 42 U.S.C. 1983 a lle g in g that the defendants have violated his constitutional rights. At the time of the filing o f this action, he was incarcerated at the South Carolina Department of Corrections. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n and opines that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to prosecute, in accordance with Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and the court advised the plaintiff in a Roseboro order of the importance o f his adequate response to the motion. Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). P la in tif f did not respond. The Magistrate Judge issued another order on December 22, 2009 re q u e stin g that the plaintiff advise the court if he wished to continue with the prosecution of th is action and allowing him fifteen additional days to respond to the defendants' motion for 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 and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). 1 1 s u m m a ry judgment. The plaintiff did not respond. T h e plaintiff was also advised of his right to file objections to the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , which was entered on the docket on March 12, 2010. However, the p lain tiff did not file any objections to the Report within the time limits prescribed. In fact, o n March 22, 2010, the copy of the Report mailed to the plaintiff was returned from the U.S. P o s tm a s te r marked "Undeliverable - Released." T h e Magistrate Judge has reviewed the matter and finds that plaintiff meets all of the criteria for dismissal under Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919 (4th Cir. 1982). After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation proper and in c o rp o ra te d herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice for fa ilu re to prosecute under Rule 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. A p ril 9, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge 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?