Wilson v. Gladson et al

Filing 66

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, adoptiong 63 Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed for failure to prosecute and failureto comply with court orders. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 4/21/2014. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Calvin Wilson,
Plaintiff,
vs.
City of Greenville, Johnathon Reese,
John Does, and Officer Gladson,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6:13-1864-TMC

ORDER

The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 of excessive
force and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against the defendants. The City of
Greenville has moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint against it and against the John Doe
defendants, whom the plaintiff claims are city officers. (ECF No. 40). In addition, defendants
Johnathon Reese and Officer Gladson have moved for summary judgment. (ECF No. 54). The
court mailed the plaintiff copies of both motions, along with information advising him of the
consequences should he fail to respond. However, the plaintiff has not responded to either
motion.
In addition, the court ordered the plaintiff to notify the court of any address change (ECF
No. 8) and ordered him to respond to the defendants’ motions by a certain date (ECF Nos. 51,
60). The plaintiff failed to comply with these orders.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter
was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s
Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the court dismiss this action for

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Although advised of his right to do
so, the plaintiff has not objected to the Report.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds no clear
error and, accordingly, adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), this action is dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure
to comply with court orders. See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989); Davis v.
Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
April 21, 2014
Anderson, South Carolina

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.