Hill v. Hallman et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation 51 is incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 6/28/2013. (mcot, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Douglas J. Hill,
) Civil Action No.: 5:12-1428-MGL
Lt. Leslie Davis,
Plaintiff Douglas J. Hill(“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 on May 30, 2012, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (ECF No.
This matter is now before the court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation filed on May 31, 2013, recommending this case be dismissed pursuant
to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to
prosecute the case. (ECF No. 51.) More specifically, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this
Court’s Orders of March 20, 2013 (ECF No. 43) and May 10, 2013 (ECF No. 47) directing
Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed on March 19, 2013.
(ECF No. 42.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for pretrial handling. The
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976).
The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Report and
Recommendation or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation.
(ECF No. 51-1.) However, he has not done so and objections were due on June 17, 2013.
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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and this
action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
June 28, 2013
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?