Wilson v. Smith et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report 9 and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 03/10/2016. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
IRVIN JEFFERSON WILSON,
a/k/a Irvin Jefferson Wilson,
SERGEANT SMITH, JAILER,
GREENVILLE COUNTY LAW
GREENVILLE COUNTY LAW
ENFORCEMENT, and STATE OF
CIVIL ACTION NO.4:15-4276-MGL-TER
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS
This case was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is
before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States
Magistrate Judge suggesting that this action be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
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 the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on February 19, 2016, but Plaintiff failed to file any
objections.* “[I]n 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 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to
object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment
of the Court that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and
service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 10th day of March, 2016, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary G. Lewis
MARY G. LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date
hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The Court notes that, in the Magistrate Judge’s February 19, 2016, Order, he informed
Plaintiff that he was “ordered to always keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing (Post Office
Box 2317, Florence, South Carolina 29503) if your address changes for any reason, so as to
assure that orders or other matters that specify deadlines for you to meet will be received by you.
If as a result of your failure to comply with this Order, you fail to meet a deadline set by this
court, your case may be dismissed for violating this Order. Therefore, if you have a change of
address before this case is ended, you must comply with this Order by immediately advising the
Clerk of Court in writing of such change of address and providing the court with the docket
number of all pending cases you have filed with this court. Your failure to do so will not be
excused by the court.” ECF No. 7 at 2 (emphasis omitted). On March 9, 2016, Plaintiff’s copy
of the Report was returned to the Clerk marked, “RETURN TO SENDER[,] VACANT[,]
UNABLE TO FORWARD[,] RETURN TO SENDER[.] Evidently, Plaintiff has failed to follow
the dictates of the Court to keep the Clerk apprised of any address change and will suffer the
consequences for it.
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?