Green v. Politic et al
Filing
20
ORDER AND OPINION: The Court finds the Magistrate Judge's 15 Report and Recommendation to be proper. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and this case be dismissed without prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with this court's Order and failure to prosecute the case. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/12/2015. (prou, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kim Green,
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
Body Politic; Department of Social Services )
and its agents; Horry County Police
)
Department and its Agents, all sued in their )
individual and official capacity,
)
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________ )
Civil Action No.: 4:15-1207-BHH
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff Kim Green (“the plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation. On May 6, 2015, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the case be
dismissed for failure to comply with this Court’s Order and failure prosecute pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).1 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).
1
See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate where
warning given); Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982) (court may dismiss sua
sponte).
“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally
been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control
necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases.” See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31,
82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). As well as inherent authority, this Court may sua
sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Id. at 630.
The plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on May 26, 2015.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this
Court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and advisory committee’s note). The plaintiff has failed
to comply with this Court's orders. As such, the Court finds that this case should be
dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
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 and this
case be dismissed without prejudice due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with this court’s
Order and failure to prosecute the case.
-2-
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
June 12, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
-3-
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?