Richards v. Kitchens et al

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute, for 15 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on October 5, 2011. (kbos)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Paul Lewis Richards,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Captain Shane Kitchens; Major Danny Gilliam, )
Sheriff James Lee Foster; Lt. Robert Dennis,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 3:11-1540-JFA-JRM

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that while
he was a pretrial detainee at the Newberry County Detention Center, the defendants violated
his constitutional rights.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that this matter should be dismissed for lack of prosecution
under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Report sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without
a recitation.
The plaintiff notified the Clerk of Court of his change of address on August 9, 2011.
A scheduling order was issued and mailed to the plaintiff at the new address. However, the

1

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

scheduling order was returned to the Clerk by the Postmaster marked “not deliverable.” As
a result, neither the court nor the defendants have any means to contact the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was mailed a copy of the Report and Recommendation and advised of
his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the
docket on September 2, 2011. The plaintiff did not file objections to the Report. In the
absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required
to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report
and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and
accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is
incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 5, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2