Clunie v. Horry County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 49

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 47 ] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 31 ]. Signed by the Honorable R. Bryan Harwell on 4/3/2017. (hcic, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Mary G. Clunie,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Horry County Sheriff’s Department; )
Phillip Thompson, Sheriff; Paul
)
Butler, Former Chief Deputy; and )
Steve Parker, Former Captain,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:16-cv-02822-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Mary G. Clunie, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States
Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
73.02 for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 47. The Magistrate Judge recommends
that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b). R & R at 2.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and 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 R & R 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
No parties have filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the
1

Plaintiff’s objections were due by March 30, 2017. See ECF No. 47.

absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. 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 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)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and hereby
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 47] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court DISMISSES this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b). The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 31].
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
April 3, 2017

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

2