Centeno v. Meeks et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 80 ) and dismisses this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute, in accordance with Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 10/10/2017. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Alexis Centeno, #14146-055,
United States of America; Mr. J. Meeks, )
Warden; Mrs. Simmons, Assistance
Warden; Mr. Ray Burn, Capetian; Mrs. )
Urrea, HSA; Mr. Whitehurst, AHSA; Dr. )
Luranth, Medical Director; Dr. Massa, )
Civil Action No. 4:16-1482-BHH
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Alexis Centeno’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for
preliminary review. On June 28, 2017, this Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report
and recommendation (“Report”) and denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with
respect to Plaintiff’s Bivens claim and gave Defendants 45 days to supplement with
Certification and to file dispositive motions with respect to any claims under the Federal
Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”).
On August 9, 2017, Defendant United States1 filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). The Court issued a Roseboro order on
August 11, 2017, in response to Defendant’s motion, advising Plaintiff of the dismissal
procedures and the potential consequence if he failed to respond to Defendant’s motion.
By order filed September 18, 2017, the United States was substituted as the sole Defendant in this
action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1).
Plaintiff failed to file a response.2
On September 18, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued another Report, outlining the
issues and recommending that the Court dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. Attached to the Report was a
notice advising Plaintiff of his right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen
days of receiving a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’ “) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
On May 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a change of address form with the Court updating his address from
the Federal Correctional Institution in Williamsburg to a New York address. None of the Court’s subsequent
mailings to the New York address have been returned to the Clerk of Court via the United States Postal
error. Finding none, the Court adopts and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 80) and
dismisses this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute, in accordance with Rule 41(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
October 10, 2017
Charleston, 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?