Lopez v. Cartledge et al

Filing 63

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report and Recommendation 58 is adopted and incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 01/06/2017. (dsto, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Erin M. Lopez, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Larry Cartledge, Warden, Florence ) Mauney, A/W Security, Stephen Claytor, ) A/W Programs Services, Curtis Earley, ) Major of Security, Charles Williams, ) Captain, ) ) Defendants. C/A No.: 4:15-4210-BHH ORDER AND OPINION This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. On December 15, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that this case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to file a response to the pending motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 58.) 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 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made. Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on January 3, 2017. 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). Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations for clear error. Finding none, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge January 6, 2017 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.

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?