Hill v. Reynolds et al

Filing 47

ORDER ADOPTING 44 Report and Recommendations; This action is DISMISSED 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. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/22/2011. (mbro, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Curtis Renal Hill,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Cecelia Reynolds, Warden; and
)
Pamela Hough, IGC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No. 6:11-359-TMC

ORDER

Curtis Renal Hill (Hill), a pro se plaintiff, filed this civil action against the defendants
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation (Report). (Dkt. No. 44.) The Report, filed on October 27, 2011, recommends
that this action 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 magistrate judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
recommendation to this court.

The magistrate judge makes only a

The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The

responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews 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 specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Hill was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (Dkt. No. 44 at 4). On
October 27, 2011, the magistrate judge filed the Report and a copy of it was placed in the mail to
Hill. (Dkt. No. 45.) However, the Report was returned as "undeliverable" on November 7, 2011.
(Dkt. No. 46.) Based on his failure to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure and the orders of
the court, it appears the Hill no longer wishes to pursue this action.
In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Report, 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 advisory committee's note).
Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of
the right to appeal from the judgment of the district court based upon such recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir.
1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the
Report and incorporates it here. (Dkt. No. 44.) Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED 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 and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d
919, 920 (4th Cir.1982). The clerk of court shall provide a filed copy of this order to the 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
Greenville, South Carolina
November 22, 2011

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.