Watkins v. Clayton et al

Filing 34

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing this action with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on September 5, 2012. (kbos)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Mr. Marshall Watkins,

#189309,

) Civil Action No.: 3:11-3035-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
AMENDED ORDER AND OPINION
)
Mr. Steven Clayton; Mr. Muhaabwa,
)
Inmate Council; Nurse Bergis, Perry
)
Correctional Institution,
)
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________)
Plaintiff Marshall Watkins is an inmate in custody at Perry Correctional Institution in
Pelzer, South Carolina. (Compl. 2, ECF No. 1).

On November 16, 2011, Plaintiff

proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. Defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment on April 26, 2012. (Mot. For Summ. J., ECF No. 21).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey for pretrial handling.
Since Plaintiff is pro se in this matter, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) on April 26, 2012, advising Plaintiff of the
importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response.
(Order, ECF No. 22). In that order, Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to respond
adequately, the Defendants’ motion would be granted, thereby ending the case. Id. at 1.
Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion. Thus, on June 15, 2012, Plaintiff was advised to
notify the court as to whether he wished to continue the case and file a response to the
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment within fifteen (15) days from the date of the
order, otherwise the case would be recommended for dismissal. (Order, ECF No. 26).

Plaintiff did not respond to this order and did not file any responsive documents.

Thus,

Magistrate Judge McCrorey recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for
lack of prosecution. (Report & Recommendation 2, ECF No. 28).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight.

The

The responsibility to make a final

determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
On July 3, 2012, Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (Report & Recommendation, ECF No. 28). However, he has not done
so. 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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,
416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and this
action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
2

s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge

Spartanburg, South Carolina
September 5, 2012.

3