Fox v. Douglas et al

Filing 94

OPINION and ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 89 Report and Recommendations and dismissing the action with prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute; finding as moot 73 Motion to Dismiss, 77 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Prosecution. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 10/3/2011. (cbru, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Kenneth Fox, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Rafael A. Douglas and Officer Edgemon, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) C/A NO. 3:10-2199-CMC-PJG OPINION and ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, asserting various claims against the above-listed Defendants. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On September 9, 2011, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this matter be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. No objections have been filed to the Report and the time for doing so has expired. 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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by 1 the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. 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.”) (citation omitted). After a review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order. This case is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Defendants’ motions for dismissal (ECF Nos. 73 & 77) are moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina October 3, 2011 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?