Bruce v. Cherokee County Sheriffs Dept et al

Filing 42

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 40 Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 10/17/2016. (gpre, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION Kevin Dewayne Bruce, Plaintiff, vs. Cherokee County Sheriff’s Department; Detective Tim Clark; and State of South Carolina, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No. 7:16-0034-TMC ORDER Plaintiff Kevin Dewayne Bruce, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 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. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 40). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 40-1). However, Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report, and the time to do so 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. 44) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED 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). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge October 17, 2016 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?