Blakely v. Moore et al

Filing 39

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation 37 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 5/22/2013. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
James G. Blakely, a/k/a James Gatewood
Blakely, a/k/a Jimmy G. Blakely,

) Civil Action No.: 5:12-2270-MGL
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
OPINION and O R D E R
v.
)
)
Dr. Moore; Nurse Connley,
)
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________ )
Plaintiff James G. Blakely (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 9, 2012, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (ECF
No. 1.) Plaintiff is incarcerated at the McCormick Correctional Center. This matter is now
before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed onApril
26, 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. 38.) More specifically, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Orders of
February 26, 2013 (ECF No. 29) and April 4, 2013 (ECF No. 33) directing Plaintiff to
respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed on February 25, 2013. (ECF
No. 28.)
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. 37-1.) However, he has not done so and objections were due on May 16, 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
Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
May 22, 2013