Dowdle et al v. Blanton et al

Filing 77

ORDER ADOPTING (53 in 6:10-cv-00390-MBS) Report and Recommendations, (74 in 6:10-cv-00159-MBS) Report and Recommendations; Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 10/20/2010. Plaintiffs complaints are dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b).Associated Cases: 6:10-cv-00159-MBS, 6:10-cv-00390-MBS(mbro, )

D o w d l e v. Blanton et al

D o c . 77

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA J o h n Ray Dowdle, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) S h e riff Bill Blanton, et al., ) ) D e fe n d a n t s . ) ____________________________________)

C/A No. 6:10-0159-MBS C/A No. 6:10-0390-MBS

ORDER

A t the time of the underlying events, Plaintiff John Ray Dowdle was a pretrial detainee at the C h e r o k e e County Detention Center in Gaffney, South Carolina. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed th e captioned complaints pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights had b e e n violated in various respects. The cases were consolidated on June 9, 2010. In accordance with Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States M a gis tra te Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pretrial handling. On July 8, 2010, Defendants filed a m o tio n for summary judgment. By order filed July 9, 2010, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528

F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), Plaintiff was advised of the summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. On September 2, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued
a n order granting Plaintiff until September 22, 2010 to file his response to Defendants' motions for s u m m a ry judgment. Plaintiff filed no response to the Magistrate Judge's order. Accordingly, on S e p te m b e r 23, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report of Magistrate Judge in which he re c o m m e n d e d that the within actions be dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P . 41(b). Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report of Magistrate Judge. T h e Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has n o presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.

Dockets.Justia.com

M a th e w s v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo d e t e r m i n a t i o n of any portions of the Report of Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is m a d e . The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the M a gis tra te Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo re v ie w , but instead must "only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in o rd e r to accept the recommendation." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315

(4th Cir. 2005).
The court has carefully reviewed the record and adopts the Report of Magistrate Judge. P l a i n t i ff' s complaints are dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b). I T IS SO ORDERED.

/ s / Margaret B. Seymour United States District Judge C o l u m b ia , South Carolina O c to b e r 20, 2010.

N O T I C E OF RIGHT TO APPEAL P l a i n tif f is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2