Tucker v. Spartanburg County Jail et al
ORDER RULING ON 33 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. The court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order. This matter is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to FRCP 41(b). Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 03/04/09. (sste )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION William Earl Tucker, Plaintiff, v. Larry W. Powers, Director of Spartanburg County Jail; Lt. William Church; and Officer Kunnak, ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A NO. 4:07-3991-CMC-TER ORDER )
) ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On February 9, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this matter be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for doing so has expired. 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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "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.") (citation omitted). After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order. This matter is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina March 4, 2009
C:\Documents and Settings\sls85\Local Settings\Temp\notes6030C8\07-3991 Tucker v. Powers dism w prej failure to prosecute.wpd
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?