Freeman v. Florence County Detention Center et al

Filing 78

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. It is therefore ORDERED that the action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b). Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 4/9/2013. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Richard Curtis Freeman, II,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Florence County Detention Center; Major
)
Norris; Captain Brunson; Lt. L’Amanda Smith; )
Nurse Nancy,
)
)
Defendants.
)

C/A No. 5:12-398-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court for review of the
Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West
made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the
District of South Carolina.1
The Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In fact, the
Report and Recommendation, which was mailed to Plaintiff’s last known address, was
returned undeliverable and marked “released.” (Dkt. No. 75). Plaintiff was advised by
order filed February 28, 2012, of his responsibility to notify the court in writing if his
address changed and that his case could be dismissed for failing to comply with the
court's order. (Dkt. No. 9).
Based on the foregoing, it appears the Plaintiff no longer wishes to prosecute

1

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 is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of
the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation, or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

this action. It is therefore ORDERED that the action is DISMISSED with prejudice for
failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the factors
outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982). See
Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
April 9, 2013

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules
3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.