Rozier v. Smith et al

Filing 40

ORDER ACCEPTING 37 Report and Recommendation; The action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 11/16/2012. (mbro)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
James Roberts Rozier,

) Civil Action No.: 8:12-504-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
ORDER
)
Officer Eddie Smith, Capt. and Jimmy
)
Boggs, Officer, in their individual capacity, )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________ )
Plaintiff James Roberts Rozier (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 23, 2012, against Defendants alleging violations
of his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1.) At the time of the underlying events, Plaintiff was
a pre-trial detainee incarcerated at the Greenwood County Detention Center. Defendants
deny Plaintiffs’ allegations.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for pretrial handling. On
October 1, 2012 an order was mailed to the parties advising them that they had twenty (20)
days from the entry date of this order to file dispositive motions. Plaintiff’s copy of this
order was mailed to his last known address. On October 22, 2012 the envelope containing
Plaintiff's copy of the October 1, 2012 order was returned to the Clerk of Court, marked
“RTS” [Return to Sender] “Released”. On October 23, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report and Recommendation recommending this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to
prosecute the case. (ECF No. 37.) A copy of the Report and Recommendation was mailed
to Plaintiff on October 23, 2012 at his last known address.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight.

The

The responsibility for making a final

determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270, 96 S.Ct. 549,
46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections to the Report, this court
is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis,
718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.1983). No objections have been filed to the Report and
Recommendation.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 37 at 3.) However, he has not done so and objections were
due on November 9, 2012. 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).
Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Order of March 12, 2012. Plaintiff was
advised by order filed March 12, 2012 of his responsibility to notify the court in writing if his
address changed. Plaintiff was informed that his case could be dismissed for failing to
comply with the court's order. It appears that Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action.
Accordingly, the court accepts the Report and Recommendation
After careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the within action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
November 16, 2012

3