Salter v. Cartledge

Filing 63

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 61 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 6/24/2015. (gpre, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Ilya Tramell Salter,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Larry Cartledge, Warden of Perry )
Corr. Inst.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No.: 8:14-cv-02746-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Ilya Tramell Salter, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Larry Cartledge, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution. See
Complaint, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges constitutional claims involving deliberate indifference to his
personal health, denial of court access, deprivation of due process, violation of his equal protection
rights, and violation of his First Amendment rights. Id. at 2-7. The matter is before the Court for
review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D.
Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of
South Carolina.1 See R & R, ECF No. 61. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court dismiss
Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Id. at
3.
Plaintiff filed the complaint on July 8, 2014, and Defendant filed an answer on October 30,

1

The Magistrate Judge conducted her review of Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to the screening
provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The Court is mindful of its duty to liberally
construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.
1978); but see Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) ("Principles
requiring generous construction of pro se complaints are not, however, without limits. Gordon
directs district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally. It does not require those courts to
conjure up questions never squarely presented to them.").

2014. See ECF Nos. 1 and 22. On December 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend or correct his
complaint; the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion because he failed to provide a proposed
amended complaint with his motion. See ECF Nos. 40 and 44. On February 19, 2015, Defendant filed
a motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 51. The next day, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Roseboro2 order notifying Plaintiff of the summary judgment/dismissal procedure and warning him of
the consequences if he failed to adequately respond. See ECF No. 52. On March 20, Plaintiff filed a
motion for an extension of time to file a response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See
ECF No. 56. The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff an extension to file his response by April 27, 2015.
See ECF No. 57. On April 29, having received no response from Plaintiff, the Magistrate Judge issued
an order reminding Plaintiff that his response was past due, giving him until May 19, 2015, to file his
response, and warning him that his case would be deemed abandoned if he filed no response. See ECF
No. 59. Plaintiff never filed a response, and the Magistrate Judge issued the R & R on May 22. See
R & R, ECF No. 61.
The Magistrate Judge 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.
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 R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit
the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the R & R. In the absence of objections to the R & R, the
Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendations.

2

Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975).

2

See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the
absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (stating that "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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'" (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly,
the R & R of the Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 61] is adopted and incorporated by reference. It is
therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, SC
June 24, 2015

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

3