Robinson v. Amonitti et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 85 ]. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is therefore ORDERED that the above-listed case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 3/17/2014. (mcot, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Corey Jawan Robinson, # 294233,
MD George Amonitti, Practitioner Ms. E
Holcomb, Doctor B Awood, and CCC L
Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-00504-JMC
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §
This matter is before the court for review of the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) [ECF No. 85], filed on February 19, 2014, recommending that the
action in the above-listed case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Davis v.
Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Report sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and legal standards on this matter which the court incorporates herein without a
The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. “The Court is not bound
by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination.” Wallace v. Hous. Auth., 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citing Matthews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (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).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report [ECF No. 85-1]. However,
Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee's note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report
results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon
such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Report and the record in this case, the
court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case and the
record in this case. The court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 85]. For the
reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is therefore ORDERED that the above-listed case is
DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
March 17, 2014
Greenville, South Carolina
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?