Ray v. Rhodes et al

Filing 63

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report and Recommendation 57 of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 6/27/2014. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Anthony Earl Ray,
Plaintiff,
v.
Chief Rhodes and John Townsend,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 4:12-cv-2723-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Anthony Earl Ray (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Chief Rhodes and John Townsend (“Defendants”) on September
19, 2012. See Compl., ECF No. 1. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
See R & R, ECF No. 57. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends
the Court dismiss this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See id. at 2.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
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
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 with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of
objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to

give any explanation for adopting the recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the
absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated
by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant
to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
June 27, 2014

2