Warrick v. Doran et al
Filing
52
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 48 . The case is dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the court's orders. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 11/6/2013. (kric, ) Modified on 11/7/2013 to correct filing date (kric, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
David Wayne Warrick,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Randy Doran and Phil Ireland,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No. 8:13-00242-JMC
ORDER
This matter is before the court for review of the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [ECF No. 48], filed on October 10, 2013, recommending that
Plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with
the court's orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff brought this action
seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts
and legal standards on these matters which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The magistrate judge's Report 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
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).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report [ECF No. 48 at 3].
1
However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Report, 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 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).
Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation, and the record in this case, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report provides
an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case and the record in this case. The court
ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 48]. For the reasons articulated by the
Magistrate Judge, it is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] is DISMISSED
for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the court's orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
November 7, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina
2
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?