Pettis v. Myers et al
Filing
40
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 35 ). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 06/03/2015. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
WILKIN O’NEAL PETTIS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DIRECTOR MYERS, AFGDC; OFFICER )
WALKER, AFGDC; SARGEANT
)
MONROE, AFGDC; CAPTAIN BUFFER, )
AFGDC; AND 2 UNKNOWN, NAMED )
OFFICERS, AFGDC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
Case No. 4:14-cv-03070-TLW
ORDER
Plaintiff Wilkin O’Neal Pettis, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 1, 2014. (Doc. #1). On November 10, 2014, the Court
entered an Order summarily dismissing Defendants Myers and Buffer. (Doc. #14). The Order
was mailed to Plaintiff the same day, and it was not returned to the Court. (Doc. #15). A
Scheduling Order was mailed to Plaintiff on November 21, 2014 (Doc. #20), and it was returned
as undeliverable and marked “no longer at this address” on January 5, 2015 (Doc. #24). On
April 6, 2015, Defendants Walker and Monroe filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc.
#30). The Magistrate Judge issued a Roseboro Order, which was mailed to Plaintiff on April 7.
(Doc. #32). That Order was returned as undeliverable and marked “no longer at this address” on
April 20, 2015. (Doc. #34).
This matter is now before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (the
“Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, to whom this case was
assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), (D.S.C.). In the
Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to
prosecute based on Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Court with an updated address and to
respond to the summary judgment motion. (Doc. #35). The Report was mailed to Plaintiff on
May 14, 2015 (Doc. #36), and it was returned to the Court as undeliverable and marked “no
longer at this address” on May 26 (Doc. #37). Plaintiff’s objections to the Report were due by
June 1, 2015. Plaintiff failed to file objections, and this matter is now ripe for review.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to
which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections
to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a
case, “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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report in light of this standard, and it concludes
that the Magistrate Judge accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. It is reasonable
to conclude that Plaintiff has abandoned this action.
It is therefore ORDERED that the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #35). For the reasons
articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to
prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
June 3, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina
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?