Cambron v. Drago et al

Filing 31

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing this case with prejudice, for 28 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on February 29, 2012. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Jason A. Cambron, #Y316765,
Plaintiff,
v.

Paul C. Drago, Sherrill Colegrove, and
Richard Cothran,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 3:11-1229-RMG

ORDER

---------------------------)

In this case, Plaintiff, who is a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 Pursuant to the provisions of28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(8)(2),
DSC, this case was automatically referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial
proceedings. On October 21, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing
that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Dkt. No. 18). On October 25,2011, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Roseboro Order instructing Plaintiff that he had thirty-four days to
respond to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 21). The Roseboro Order
stated that the Court may grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment if Plaintiff did not
file a response by the deadline. (Id.). Notwithstanding these instructions, Plaintiff did not file a
response to Defendants' motion by the December 1, 2011 deadline. On January 13, 2012, the
Magistrate Judge issued an Order asking Plaintiff to advise the Court whether he wished to
continue with the case, and instructing Plaintiff that the Magistrate Judge would recommend that
the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute if Plaintiff did not file a response within fifteen

Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his right under the Eighth Amendment to be free from
cruel and unusual punishment. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2). Plaintiff claims that he suffered a shoulder
injury on October 23,2010, when he fell from his sink (id. at 3) and that Defendants did not give
him proper medical care for the injury. (ld. at 3-5).
I

Page 10f3

days from the date of the order. (Dkt. No. 25). To this date, Plaintiff has not filed any response
to the Magistrate's Order or Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
On February 6, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that Plaintiffs action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. (Dkt.
No. 28). The Magistrate Judge instructed Plaintiff of the deadline for filing objections to the
Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences for failing to do so. (Id. at 3).
Notwithstanding these instructions, Plaintiff did not file a response to the Report and
Recommendation by the deadline.
LawI Analysis

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific

objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). This Court may also
"receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." ld.
Where, as in this case, the Plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, the Magistrate Judge's
conclusions are reviewed only for clear error, see Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and this Court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the recommendation of the Magistrate. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983).
Upon reviewing the record, this Court agrees with, and wholly adopts, the findings and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. As the Magistrate Judge explained in his Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and meets all criteria for dismissal

Page 2 of3

under Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, this case is
dismissed with prejudice.
~s SO ORDERED.

February )Ii, 2012
Charleston, South Carolina

Richard Mar£f21
United States District Court Judge

Page 3 of3