Dixon v. Abbeville Housing Authority

Filing 39

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 34 Report and Recommendation dismissing Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, mooting 25 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Abbeville Housing Authority. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 1/10/13. (alew, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Robert Lee Dixon,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Abbeville Housing Authority,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________ )

C/A No.: 8:12-cv-00486-GRA

ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter comes before the Court for review of United States Magistrate
Judge Kevin F. McDonald’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., and filed on December 20,
2012. Plaintiff Robert Lee Dixon (“Plaintiff”) commenced this pro se civil action on
February 21, 2012.

Defendant Abbeville Housing Authority (“Defendant”) moved for

summary judgment on October 21, 2012.

Magistrate Judge McDonald recommends

that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendant pursuant to Rule 41(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. No objections have been
filed to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to object has passed.1
Petitioner brings this claim pro se.

This Court is required to construe pro se

1

 Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by January 7, 2013. The court clerk
forwarded a copy of the Report and Recommendation to Petitioner on December 20, 2012, along
with a notice that stated:
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and
Recommendation with the District Judge. . . . “[I]n 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.’” . . . Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14)
days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. . . . Failure to timely file
specific objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to
appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such a Recommendation.
Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 34.   

Page 1 of 3

pleadings liberally.

Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those

drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This
Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for
the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365 (1982).
The

magistrate

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.

Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71

(1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of
the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court
may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further
evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions."

Id.

In the

absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not
required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis,
718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983). Furthermore, failure to object waives a petitioner’s right
to appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
After a careful review of the record, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation accurately summarizes the case and applicable law.
Accordingly, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Report and
Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Page 2 of 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is
moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 10 , 2013
Anderson, South Carolina

Page 3 of 3