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, )

Download PDF
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.

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?