Green v. Merchant et al

Filing 46

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court finds the Magistrate Judges recommendation to be proper. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation 42 is incorporated herein by reference to the extent consistent with this order and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 10/09/2013. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
) Civil Action No. 4:12-2863-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
v.
)
N. Merchant;
)
OPINION AND ORDER
C/O Davis;
)
)
C/O Moore;
)
A. Glidewell,
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________ )
DuJuan Green, #331708,

Plaintiff DuJuan Green (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is now
before the court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation filed on July 25, 2013,
recommending this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to prosecute the case, and failed to comply with this court’s order.
(ECF No. 42.) Specifically, Plaintiff failed to comply with this court’s order of June 12, 2013 (ECF
No. 38) directing Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed on June
5, 2013. (ECF No. 36.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge
makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with

instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. Plaintiff
was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 42-1.)
However, he has not done so and objections were due by August 12, 2013. 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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference to the extent
consistent with this order and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
October 9, 2013

-2-