Roach v. Timmons et al

Filing 49

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 39 ), GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34 ), and DISMISSES this action with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 05/16/2017. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Christopher Joel Roach, #608050,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Bernard McKie,
)
in his official capacity as warden,
)
South Carolina Department of Corrections, )
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-00948-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III’s
Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 39), filed on November 18, 2016,
recommending that Plaintiff Christopher Joel Roach’s action be dismissed with prejudice for
failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failing to respond to
Defendant Bernard McKie’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34).
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this court, which 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 to which specific objections are made.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 39-1).
However, neither party filed any objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to

1

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 advisory committee’s
note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s
waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and does not contain clear error. The
court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 39), GRANTS
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) and DISMISSES this action with
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
May 16, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

2