Brown v. Strickland et al

Filing 61

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 57 Report and Recommendation. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 2/3/2016. (gpre, )

1IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Wendell Brown,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
Andy Strickland, Jodie Taylor, Matthew
)
Walker, David Matthews, Colleton County
)
Sheriffs Office,
)
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________ )

C/A No.: 8:15-1252-BHH

ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Wendell Brown (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the Court on Defendants
Andy Strickland and Jodie Taylor’s (“Defendants”) motion for summary judgment which was
filed on September 30, 2015. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff filed no response to the motion for
summary judgment.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation. On January 5, 2016, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the case be
dismissed for failure to comply with court orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (ECF
No. 57.) The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final
determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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).

‘The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally
been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control
necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases.” See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31
(1962). As well as inherent authority, this Court may sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of
prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Id. at 630.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 57-1.) Plaintiff filed no objections, and the time for doing so
expired on January 22, 2016. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation, 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 and advisory committee’s note). Plaintiff has
failed to comply with this Court's orders. As such, the Court finds that this case should be
dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and this
action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge

-2-

February 3, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

-3-