Harden v. Byars et al
Filing
68
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 57 Report and Recommendation; It is therefore ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 8/29/2012. (mbro)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
William G. Harden,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
-vs)
)
William R. Byars, Jr., as successor )
to Joe E. Ozmint, Director of the
)
South Carolina Department of
)
Corrections; Bernard McKie,
)
Warden Kirkland Reception and
)
Evaluation Center; Warden of
)
Lieber Correctional Institution in
)
2009; Name Unknown; Robert M. )
Stevenson, III, Warden of Broad
)
River Correctional Institution in
)
2009-2010; Known and Unknown )
Correctional Officers, 2009-1010; )
Known and Unknown Medical
)
Personnel, 2009-2010; Unknown
)
Transportation Officers and
)
Supervisors, 2009; and Colie
)
Rushton, Chief of Security,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)
Civil Action No. 6:12-604-MGL
Opinion and Order
Plaintiff William G. Harden, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
on March 5, 2012 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. At the time of the underlying
events, Plaintiff was an inmate in custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC).
This matter is now before the court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed
on July 27, 2012, recommending this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to prosecute the case. More specifically,
Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Order of March 19, 2012 directing Plaintiff to bring
this case into proper form for evaluation and possible service of process. The Report and
Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards in this matter, and the
court incorporates the Magistrate Judge's recommendation without a recitation.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge
makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, 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). Furthermore, failure to file specific written
objections to the Report and Recommendation 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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th
Cir.1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.1984).
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that this case
is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
August 29, 2012
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?