Norman v. Greenville County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 51

ORDER adopting in part Report and Recommendations re 48 Report and Recommendation; finding as moot 43 Motion for Summary Judgment. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/12/2018.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION

Rahmad I. Norman,
Plaintiff,
v.
Greenville County Sheriff’s Office, A.J.
Waterlander, J.T. Martin, Richard Roe,
Officer Justin Burdine, Officer Drew
Herring, and Officer Kelly Patrick,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6:17-cv-00364-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action pursuant 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. 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. The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on
February 6, 2017. (ECF No. 1). On June 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his
Complaint1 (ECF No. 25), which was granted on June 16, 2017, (ECF No. 26). Defendants
answered the Complaint. (ECF Nos. 30, 39). On December 7, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 43). The magistrate judge issued an Order pursuant to
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the potential
consequences that he could face if he failed to adequately respond to Defendant’s motion. (ECF
No. 45). Despite this admonition, Plaintiff did not respond to the motion.
Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending either that the court dismiss the case for lack of prosecution or that the court
grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 48). Plaintiff was advised of his
1

Plaintiff’s original Complaint included a John Doe and Jane Doe as defendants. Plaintiff amended his Complaint
after discovering the identities of the unidentified defendants. (ECF No. 26).
1

right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 48 at 7). However, Plaintiff has filed no
objections, and the time to do so has now run. Notably, Plaintiff’s last communication with this
court about this case was on August 10, 2017, when he returned the Executed Summons. (ECF
No. 38). Since that time, Plaintiff has had no contact with the court about this case despite
several warnings that failure to respond to the motions and Report may be detrimental to his
claims. (ECF Nos. 45, 48).
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,
270–71 (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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee’s note).
After a careful and thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set
forth above, the court finds that Plaintiff’s case is subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).2 Accordingly, the court adopts the Report (ECF
No. 48) in part, and incorporates it herein to the extent it is consistent with this opinion.
Therefore, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Furthermore, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 43) is DENIED
as moot.
2

Plaintiff should be fully aware of his responsibility to prosecute his case because he has had at least four other cases
before this court that have been dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Norman v. Burns, No. 9:17-cv-01552-TMC
(D.S.C. Oct. 4, 2017); Norman v. Osbourne et al., 8:13-cv-01242-TMC (D.S.C. Jan. 7, 2014); Norman v. Price, 8:12-cv0323-TMC (D.S.C. Dec. 4, 2013); Norman v. Brooks et al., 8:12-cv-02862-TMC (D.S.C. Nov. 20, 2013).
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
February 12, 2018
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.

3