Lyles v. Grant et al

Filing 62

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 54 Report and Recommendation, granting 23 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. This action is dismissed without prejudice as to Defendants Chandra Grant and Tyanna Hardy. Signed by Honorable A Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr on 5/16/2018. (gpre, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Kenyatte Lyles,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
vs.
)
)
)
)
Anthony Grant, Rotundra Hughley,
)
Jennifer Doe, Candice Makins, Tyanna
)
Hardy, Chandra Grant,
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________
)

Civil Action No.: 6:17-cv-03245-AMQ-JDA

ORDER

Plaintiff Kenyatte Lyles (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1964 alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(“RICO”) Act. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff originally brought this action in the Northern District of
Georgia, and it was transferred to this Court on December 1, 2017. (ECF No. 9.) The matter is
now before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States
Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin recommending that the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendant Chandra Grant and Defendant Tyanna Hardy be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) due to a failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 54). The Report was issued in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B) for the District of South
Carolina.
Magistrate Judge Austin issued the Report on April 13, 2018. (ECF No. 54.) The
Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the right to file objections to the Report, the procedures and
requirements for filing objections to the Report, and the serious consequences if he failed to do

so. (ECF No. 54-1). As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time
for doing so has expired.
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 or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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). Furthermore, failure to file specific written
objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the
District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Wells v. Shriners
Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[t]he Supreme Court has authorized the waiver rule
that we enforce… ‘[A] court of appeals may adopt a rule conditioning appeal, when taken from a
district court judgment that adopts a magistrate’s recommendation, upon the filing of objections
with the district court identifying those issues on which further review is desired.’”) (citing
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985)).
After a thorough review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report, the Court finds
the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper and has determined that there is no clear
error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court adopts the recommendation and
incorporates the Report herein by specific reference. For the reasons articulated by the
Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ordered that the Plaintiff’s action be dismissed without prejudice
as to Defendants Chandra Grant and Tyanna Hardy.

2

ORDERED, that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted as the
order of this court, and this action is hereby dismissed without prejudice as to Defendants
Chandra Grant and Tyanna Hardy.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr.
United States District Judge
May 16, 2018
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.

3