Blanding v. Department of Social Services et al

Filing 31

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court finds that Plaintiff's case is subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) due to failure to comply with court orders. Plaintiff is personally responsible for his lack of compliance with the courts order. Furthermore, the court finds that less drastic sanctions would not be effective in this case. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 4/30/2018. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION

Vernon L. Blanding,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Department of Social Services,
)
DSS Caseworker, Pineridge Police
)
Department, Officer Parker,
)
CCS Correct Care Solutions,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-03223-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action pursuant 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. The magistrate judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the district court dismiss the Complaint without
prejudice because Plaintiff had failed to state a plausible claim for relief. (ECF. No. 11). Plaintiff
filed objections to the Report. (ECF NO. 25). On April 12, 2018, the district court entered a text
order notifying Plaintiff that his Complaint was subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim
against the Defendants and allowing Plaintiff fourteen days to amend his Complaint in order to
remedy the deficiencies. (ECF No. 28). The court warned Plaintiff that failure to cure the
deficiencies in the Complaint may result in the dismissal of his case. This text order was mailed to
Plaintiff at his last-known address. (ECF No. 29). However, on April 23, 2018, the order was
returned to the court as “undeliverable.” (ECF No. 30). Notably, Plaintiff had been previously
advised by order filed January 2, 2018, of his responsibility to notify the court in writing if his

1

address changed. (ECF No. 9 at 2). The Plaintiff was warned that his case could be dismissed for
failing to comply with that order. Id.
The court finds that Plaintiff’s case is subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) due to failure to comply with court orders. “The Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure recognize that courts must have the authority to control litigation before
them, and this authority includes the power to order dismissal of an action for failure to comply
with court orders.” Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b)). Additionally, the “authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has
generally been considered an ‘inherent power’” of the courts. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S.
626, 631 (1962). Plaintiff is personally responsible for his lack of compliance with the courts order.
Furthermore, the court finds that less drastic sanctions would not be effective in this case.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
April 30, 2018
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