Small v. Blackwell et al

Filing 64

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 60 Report and Recommendations granting 49 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Prosecution. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 6/8/11. (awil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Hope F. Small,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
)
Brian Blackwell; City of Union.
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No. 7:10-cv-00468-JMC

ORDER

This is a civil action filed by pro se Plaintiff Hope F. Small.

In his Report and

Recommendation [Doc. 60] filed on February 26, 2010, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
court grant Defendants Brian Blackwell and the City of Union’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss
[Doc. 49] under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of prosecution as the
plaintiff failed to respond to discovery requests and failed to appear for her scheduled deposition.
The Report and Recommendation sets forth the relevant facts, which this court incorporates herein
without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge
makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. 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 Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit
the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of her right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. [Doc. 60-1, at 1]. However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and
1

Recommendation.
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 advisory
committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and
Recommendation 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); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th
Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the court
adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. 60] and incorporates it herein.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. 49]. This action is hereby
DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ J. Michelle Childs
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
June 8, 2011

2