Abrams v. Washington, D.C., State of et al

Filing 28

ORDER Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process; adopting 17 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 4/11/18.(mflo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert J. Abrams,

C/A No. 3:18-95-JFA-SVH
Plaintiff,

v.
ORDER
State of Washington, D.C.; V.A.; and
Tammy Vazqis, Walmart Worker,
Defendants.
Robert J. Abrams (Plaintiff), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this
action alleging a violation of his civil rights. (ECF No. 1). The Magistrate Judge assigned
to this action 1 prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (Report) and opines that
this Court should dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process. (ECF No. 17). 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 Magistrate found that Plaintiff failed to prosecute his case pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41, and therefore, Plaintiff’s case should be dismissed. The Plaintiff was advised of
his right to file objections to the Report, which was entered on the docket on March 9,

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 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

2018. However, Plaintiff did not file objections and the time to do so has now expired. 2 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 Magistrate’s recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Magistrate Judge has allowed the
Plaintiff ample time to respond to the Court’s orders and the Plaintiff has failed to do so.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the
Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately
summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court
adopts the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 11, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2

The Court takes notice that Plaintiff has not given an accurate address to this Court, and
therefore, has not received the documents from this Court. On March 9, 2018, the clerk’s office
attempted to mail the Report to Plaintiff’s listed address. However, the mail was returned as
undeliverable. After an error was discovered in the mailing address, the Report was re-mailed to
what was believed to be the correct address on March 28, 2018. On April 3, 2018, the mail was
returned as insufficient address and unable to forward. The clerk’s office then attempted to call
Plaintiff by phone on April 4, 2018. However, the phone number was disconnected. The clerk’s
office then located another potential variation of the Plaintiff’s address in Plaintiff’s answers to
interrogatories. The Report was again mailed in attempt to reach Plaintiff on April 4, 2018. On
April 9, 2018, it was returned as undeliverable. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to update
his contact information with the Court.
2