Chestnut v. Warden Lieber Correctional Institution
ORDER adopting 30 Report and Recommendation that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Further, Respondent's 22 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 3/10/17. (kmca) (Main Document 32 replaced on 3/10/2017: to correct typo) (kmca).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Antoine F. Chestnut,
Warden, Lieber Correctional Institution,
Civil Action No. 6:16-2912-TMC
Petitioner Antoine F. Chestnut, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this habeas action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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
action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 30). The parties were
advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 30 at 3). However, neither party
filed any objections to the Report, and the time to do has now run.
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 record in this case, the court adopts the Report (ECF No.
30) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for
failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the factors outlined in
Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882
F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989). Further, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22) is
DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
March 10, 2017
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.
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?