Kaminski v. Doyle et al

Filing 56

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 53 The Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Defendants motion to dismiss, or alternatively, for summary judgment [ECF No. 40] is MOOT. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 6/6/2018. (kric, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Michael Joseph Kaminski,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Officer Morrison, Cpl. Catchot, and )
Randy Demory,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No.: 6:17-cv-02469-RBH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). See ECF No. 53. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Court dismiss this case for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).1
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit
the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
No party has filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.2 In the
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the

1

The R & R indicates the dismissal should be with prejudice, which is consistent with the language of Rule
41(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“[A] dismissal under this subdivision (b) . . . operates as an adjudication on the
merits.”).
2

Plaintiff’s objections were due by May 18, 2018. See ECF Nos. 53 & 54.

Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection,
a district court need not conduct 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
72 advisory committee’s note)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and hereby
adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 53]. Accordingly, the
Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b). Defendants’ motion to dismiss, or alternatively, for summary judgment [ECF No. 40]
is MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
June 6, 2018

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

2