Fair v. Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center et al

Filing 95

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts the Report and incorporates it here. (Dkt. No. 91 ). Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 87 ) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED wit hout prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this court's orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The clerk of court shall provide a filed copy of this order to Plaintiff at his last known address. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 12/7/2017. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Antonio Anthony Fair, Jr.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center;
)
Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center Officers; )
Lt. Lappit; Sgt. Walker; Sgt. Waites; Sgt. )
Ross; Sgt. Frazier; Lt. Sigh; Grievance
)
Coordinator; Ofc. Jamieson; Lt. Friedly;
)
Capt. Heston; Ofc. Isis; Ofc. Saldana;
)
Capt. Higgins; Shane Kitchens; Ofc.
)
Unknown Name; Ofc. Jones, and
)
Ofc. Adams,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No. 5:17-cv-00976-TMC

ORDER

Antonio Anthony Fair, Jr., a pro se plaintiff, filed this civil action against the defendants
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 The case was referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.).
Plaintiff was originally detained at Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center in Richland County,
South Carolina. (ECF No. 1). However, Plaintiff eventually moved to a detention center in
Appling, Georgia, and he notified the court of this move. (ECF No. 76). Since then, all mail sent to
Plaintiff has been returned as “undeliverable.” (ECF Nos. 77, 84). On November 14, 2017,
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss this case for failure to prosecute (ECF No. 87) because they
have been unable to complete discovery due to Plaintiff being unreachable. The magistrate judge

1

Plaintiff labeled his Complaint as a Bivens claim against federal officials. (ECF No. 1-4 at 4). However, Plaintiff’s
claims for damages allegedly arise from the conditions of his confinement in a state detention center in South Carolina,
and no federal officials are named in the Complaint. This court has, therefore, considered this claim as a claim
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
1

issued a Roseboro Order (ECF No.88), but this, too, was returned to the court as “undeliverable.”
Before this court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 91) on
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, recommending that this case be dismissed for lack of prosecution
and failure to comply with orders of the court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
See also Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989). The Report sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the magistrate judge's
recommendation here without a recitation.
The recommendations set forth in the Report have no presumptive weight, and this court
remains responsible for making a final determination in this matter. See Matthews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report to which a specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject,
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge or recommit the matter
with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the court need not conduct a de novo review
when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a
specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson,
687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the magistrate
judge’s conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (Dkt. No. 91 at 4). On
November 28, 2017, the magistrate judge filed the Report, and a copy of it was placed in the mail
to Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 92). However, the Report was returned as "undeliverable" on December 6,
2017. (Dkt. No. 93). Based on his failure to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure and the

2

orders of the court2, it appears Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the
Report and incorporates it here. (Dkt. No. 91). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 87) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of prosecution
and for failure to comply with this court's orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The clerk of court shall provide a filed copy of this order to Plaintiff at his last
known address. The Plaintiff’s attention is directed to the important notice on the following page.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
December 7, 2017

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.

2

Specifically, as mentioned in detail in the Report, the magistrate judge issued a “Proper Form Order” on May 3,
2017, in which the court instructed Plaintiff to submit any changes in his address to the court in writing. (ECF No. 6 at
3).
3