Starr v. Jordan et al

Filing 61

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 Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 48 is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 1/14/2014. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Levern Starr
Plaintiff,
v.
Solicitor Patricia Singleton Parr,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-1033-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Levern Starr (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action
alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 26,
2013, Defendant Parr filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 48. 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 that the Court dismiss the action with
prejudice for failure to prosecute. See id. at 1–2.
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 Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice
for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
January 14, 2014

2