Williams v. Brockenberry et al
Filing
44
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 40 ] is incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 3/30/2017. (mcot, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Alfrigh Williams,
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
Ruby Brockenberry, Gary Leamon, Charles )
Reeves, C. West, Stacy Carter, and E.
)
Bittinger,
)
)
Defendants.
___________________________________
Civil Action No.: 5:16-cv-3192-BHH
ORDER AND OPINION
Alfrigh Williams (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Kaymani D. West for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation. On
March 7, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation which
recommends that the case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (ECF No. 40.) 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 (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 authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has
generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by
the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S.
626, 630–31 (1962). As well as inherent authority, this Court may sua sponte dismiss a
case for lack of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Id. at 630.
Plaintiff filed no objections, and the time to do so expired on March 24, 2017. In
the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 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 and advisory committee’s note).
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 for failure to prosecute pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
March 30, 2017
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
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?