Manick v. Garrison et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 84 . The Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 2/8/2017. (kric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Marcus Antwan Manick,
Johnathan Garrison, Donna Miller, Maxine
Lee, Self Regional Hospital, and Luke Lark, )
Civil Action No.: 6:16-2042-BHH
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff Marcus Antwan Manick (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC, this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and
Recommendation. On January 20, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation which recommends that the case be dismissed for lack of prosecution
41(b). (ECF No. 84.) 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 (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 (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.
On January 30, 2017, the envelope containing Plaintiff’s copy of the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 84) was returned to the Clerk of Court, marked “RETURN
TO SENDER, NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED, UNABLE TO FORWARD” and
“RTS Released.” (ECF No. 86.) Plaintiff was advised by order filed June 30, 2016, of his
responsibility to notify the Court in writing if his address changed and that his case could
be dismissed for failing to comply with the Court's order. (ECF No. 6.)
Plaintiff filed no objections, and the time for doing so expired on February 6,
2016. 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
February 8, 2017
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.
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?