Field v. Johnson Food Service et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 18 Report and Recommendation and dismissing the case. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 1/18/2017. (asni, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Johnson Food Service; Charles Lakyn;
Mary Glover; T. Blanchard; Wendell
Booker; and Theresa Bratton,
Civil Action No.: 3:16-cv-02295-JMC
This matter is before the court upon review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation recommending that the case be dismissed, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), for
pro se Plaintiff Justin Field’s (“Plaintiff”), failure to prosecute, (ECF No. 18.) The Report and
Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02
for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this
court, which has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains
with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976).
The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report
and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. In the absence of objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendation, see Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983), and, rather than
conducting a de novo review, need “‘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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Plaintiff filed this employment discrimination complaint against his former employer
Johnson Food Service. On June 30, 2016, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to provide the
service documents necessary to advance his case, and to write a short and plain statement of his
claim. (ECF No. 9) Plaintiff was warned that the failure to provide the necessary information
within a specific time period would subject the case to dismissal. Id. Plaintiff did not file a
response. The Magistrate Judge filed a second order on July 28, 2016, and ordered Plaintiff to
provide the service documents necessary to advance his case, and to write a short and plain
statement of his claim. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff was again warned that the failure to provide the
necessary information within a specific time period would subject the case to dismissal. Id. The
time for response expired on August 22, 2016, and Plaintiff did not file a response. Based on the
above facts, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this case be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. (ECF No. 18.)
Plaintiff was advised of his rights to file specific written objections to the Report and
Recommendation and of the consequences for failure to do so. (Id. at 3.) However, Plaintiff filed
no objections to the Report and Recommendation. After a thorough review of the record in this
case, the court finds the Report and Recommendation provides an accurate summary of the facts
and law, and the court discerns no clear error in it. Accordingly, the court ACCEPTS the Report
and Recommendation (ECF No. 18), and this case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
January 18, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
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?