Camden v. Greenville, City of et al

Filing 33

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 30 Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 7/31/2015. (gpre, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Steven Blair Camden,
Plaintiff,
vs.
City of Greenville, Officer Shelton,
Jimmy Digirolamo, Mary Thomas,
Benjamin Thomas, Alia Paramore,
Richard Schwartz, Charlse Lane, Jamie
Lepak, B. W. Lusk, Diana M. Cadavid,
P.C. Loyd, Jeff Burdette, R. C. Hall,
Adam Kearney, Melissa Lawson,
Ronald Powell, Benedict Sambrano,
Jessica Hawkins, Joshua Tankersley,
Nathan Smith, Samuel Holbrooks,
Defendants.
_______________________________

) Civil Action No. 6:14-4554-BHH
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff Steven Blair Camden (“the plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this action
pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pre-trial handling and a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”).
This matter is before the Court on the defendants (“the defendants”) motions to
dismiss were filed on February 13, 2015 (ECF Nos. 21, 22.) The plaintiff filed no response
to the motions to dismiss.
On April 22, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in
which she recommended that the case be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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 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 was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 30-1.) Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so
expired on May 12, 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). 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 and this
action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge

July 31, 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.