Laur v. Equifax Inc

Filing 60

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 51 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Prosecution, filed by Experian Inc, incorporating herein by reference 56 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/12/15. (alew, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
E.M. Rocky Laur,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
Experian, Inc.,
)
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 6:14-1771-BHH

ORDER AND OPINION

The plaintiff E.M. Rocky Laur (“the plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court on
the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution (ECF No. 51).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation. On May 8, 2015, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the case be
dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).1 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).
“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally

1

See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate where
warning given); Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982) (court may dismiss sua
sponte).

been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control
necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases.” See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31,
82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). As well as inherent authority, this Court may sua
sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Id. at 630.
The plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on May 26, 2015.
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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and advisory committee’s note). The plaintiff has failed
to comply with this Court's orders. As such, the Court finds that this case should be
dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference.
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution (ECF
NO. 51) is granted, and this case is dismissed with prejudice due to the plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute the case.

-2-

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge

June 12, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

-3-