Norman v. Osbourne et al

Filing 46

ORDER adopting 41 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks; terminating as moot 31 Motion for Summary Judgment. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 1/7/2014.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Rahmad I. Norman a/k/a Rahmad Norman, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Steave Osbourne, Office Nichols,
)
Nick Futch, John Doe, and Richard Roe,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Civil Action No. 8:13-1242-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, 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 lack of
prosecution.1 (ECF No. 41). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report.
(ECF No. 41 at 3). However, Plaintiff has not filed objections 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

1

Originally, the court mailed all documents to Plaintiff’s address on file at Greenwood County Detention Center.
These documents began returning to the court as undeliverable and marked “Released” in September 2013. Plaintiff
did not update his address with the court as ordered to by ECF No. 8. However, the court noted that Plaintiff had
provided a new residential address in other actions. Accordingly, the court re-mailed the Report to that address on
December 10, 2013. (ECF No. 44). That document was not returned to the court and the court has not received a
response from Plaintiff.

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.
41) and incorporates it herein. Therefore, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice 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). In addition, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
31) is TERMINATED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
January 7, 2014
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.