Jenerette v. Dozier et al

Filing 39

ORDER RULING ON 34 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This Court adopts the magistrates Report and Recommendation in its entirety. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiffs complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(b). Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 10/15/08. (sste, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION DONNIE JENERETTE, Jr., Plaintiff, v. CAMERON DOZIER; VAGELINE MAY, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No.: 4:08-cv-00694-GRA-TER ORDER (Written Opinion) This matter comes before the Court for a review of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., filed on September 10, 2008. The pro se plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 on February 29, 2008. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment along with a memorandum and affidavits in support on August 14, 2008. On August 15, 2008, the magistrate issued an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the Motion for Summary Judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. Plaintiff has failed to file a response. Standard of Review Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982). The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id. In order for objections to be considered by a United States District Judge, the objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which the party objects and the basis for the objections. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); see United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91,94 n.4 (4th Cir. 1984); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-47 nn.1-3 (4th Cir. 1985). "Courts have . . . held de novo review to be unnecessary in . . . situations when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendation." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Furthermore, in the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983). objections. The plaintiff has offered no Conclusion After reviewing the record, and the Report and Recommendation this Court finds that the magistrate applied sound legal principles to the facts of this case. Therefore, this Court adopts the magistrate's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. Anderson, South Carolina October 15, 2008 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Petitioner has the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date of its entry. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal.

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?