Bennett v. St. Lawrence

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING 20 Report and Recommendations; this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this courts orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4thCir.1982). Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/10/2011. (mbro, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD
Edward B. Bennett,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Al St. Lawrence,
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No. 8:11-01437-TMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(Dkt. # 20). The pro se Petitioner, a pretrial detainee at the Chatham County Jail in Savannah,
Georgia, originally filed this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division. Petitioner was
sent to the Chatham County Jail due to a detainer issued by Charleston County. The case was
subsquently transferred to this Court on June 13, 2011. In his Petition (Dkt. # 6, at 4, 6),
Petitioner alleged a violation of his right to a speedy trial.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation, filed on August 10, 2011, recommends that Defendant’s Petition (Dkt. # 6) be
dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the Respondent to file an answer.

The

Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this
matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation 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.
1

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
objections are 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. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation
(Dkt. # 20 at 7). However, Petitioner filed no objections to the Report and 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).
The record reveals that Petitioner was advised by order dated June 23, 2011, of his
responsibility to notify the court in writing if his address changed. (Dkt. # 15).

On August 10,

2011, the Magistrate Judge filed the Report and a copy of it was placed in the mail addresses to
Petitioner. The mail was returned and marked undeliverable with a stamp stating Petitioner no
longer lived at the address. (Dkt. # 24).

As Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court mailed a
2

second copy on August 19, 2011, and this mail was also returned undeliverable with a stamp
stating Petitioner no longer lived at the address. (Dkt. # 29). Furthermore, Petitioner has not
objected to the Magistrate’s recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Based on the

foregoing, it appears the Petitioner no longer wishes to pursue this action.
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for
failure to comply with this court’s orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th
Cir.1982).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
November 10, 2011

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