Roberts v. Shelton et al

Filing 65

OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING 59 Report and Recommendation. This matter is DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Defendants' 27 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Tyrone Goggins; 40 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Matthew A Veal, Jawarski Shelton are denied as moot. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 8/1/2013. (mbro)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Billy Joe Roberts,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Lt. Jawarski Shelton, Sgt. Matthew A. Veal, )
and Lt. Tyrone Goggins,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-02724-JMC

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court upon review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), filed on May 29, 2013, recommending that this case be dismissed
for failure to prosecute. [Dkt. No. 59]. Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to
Title 42 U.S.C. §1983. On December 21, 2012, Defendant Goggins filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. [Dkt. No. 27]. On January 10, 2013, Defendants Shelton and Veal filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 40].

On December 27, 2012, and January 10, 2013, the

Magistrate Judge entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, advising Plaintiff of the
summary judgment procedure and the consequences if he failed to respond to the motions. [Dkt.
Nos. 29, 41], see Roseboro, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). Plaintiff responded in opposition to
the summary judgment motions and filed motions requesting a hearing. [Dkt. No.s 44, 51].
Plaintiff pled guilty in state court on April 11, 2013, was sentenced to time served and
was released from the detention center where he had been held. The Magistrate Judge ordered
Plaintiff to advise the court by May 24, 2013, of the status of the arrest and resulting charges that
formed the basis of this action.

[Dkt. No. 55].

The order was mailed but returned as

undeliverable. [Dkt. No. 58]. Plaintiff was advised by court order that he was required to notify
1

the court in writing if his address changed. [Dkt. No. 8]. Plaintiff has made no contact with the
court since April 5, 2013. [Dkt. No. 54]. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and the time for doing so has expired.
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. 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court ACCEPTS
the Magistrate Judge’s Report. [Dkt. No. 59]. Plaintiff was given multiple opportunities to
prosecute his action and has failed to do so. This matter is DISMISSED pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [Dkt. Nos. 27, 40] are
denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
August 1, 2013

2