Peterson v. Brown et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 43 ) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute p ursuant 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). Further, Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34 ) is DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 1/4/2016. (mcot, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert Earl Peterson,
Kenny Brown, David Philbeck, and
Captain Steven Anderson,
C/A No. 5:15-861-TMC
Plaintiff Robert Earl Peterson, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter
was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s
Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Plaintiff’s action be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 43). Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the
Report. In fact, the Report, which was mailed to Plaintiff’s last known address, was returned as
“Insufficient Address – Unable to Forward.” (ECF No. 45).
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. 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).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the court adopts the Report (ECF No.
43) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 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). Further, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34)
is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
January 4, 2016
Anderson, South Carolina
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?