Bey v. Singleton et al

Filing 32

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and relevant filings. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF N o. 26 , is ACCEPTED, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2 , is DENIED, and this action is summarily DISMISSED. Although a close question, this Court concludes the dismissal should be without prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the Court's orders. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 11/6/2018. (prou, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Martel Quameh Bey,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Stephanie Singleton; Deputy Cook; Deputy )
Lilianthol; Deputy Donahoe; Sgt. Caswell; )
Sgt. Williams; Sgt. Green; Sgt. Roderick; )
Sgt. Sheppard; and Major Smith,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 5:18-cv-00384-TLW

ORDER

Plaintiff Martel Quameh Bey brought this action, pro se, seeking damages pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. He also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. On
April 24, 2018, Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to bring the case into proper form, the action
was subject to dismissal. ECF No. 14. On July 5, 2018, Plaintiff was advised again that if he failed
to bring the case into proper form, the action would be dismissed. ECF No. 18. The Order also
extended the deadline to respond until July 20, 2018. Despite these filings, Plaintiff failed to
respond or to bring this case into proper form.
This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(the Report) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, to whom this case had
previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e),
(D.S.C.). ECF No. 26. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the motion to proceed
in forma pauperis be denied, and the Complaint be dismissed. Id. Objections were due on August
27, 2018, however, Plaintiff failed to file objections to the Report.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge=s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636. In the absence of objections to the Report, this Court is not required to give any explanation
for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and relevant filings. For the reasons
articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation, ECF No.
26, is ACCEPTED, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is DENIED, and
this action is summarily DISMISSED. Although a close question, this Court concludes the
dismissal should be without prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure
to comply with the Court’s orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__s/Terry L. Wooten______
Chief United States District Judge
November 6, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina