Evans v. Byars et al

Filing 129

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION the court adopts the 126 Magistrate Judge's Report. Moreover, because Plaintiff has also failed to respond to the sole remaining Defendant Bealum's pending 123 summary judgment motion, the court finds the entire action should be dismissed. Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/16/2018. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Timothy A. Evans,
Plaintiff,
vs.
William R. Byars, Jr., Dennis Patterson,
John R. Pate, Arthur Jordan,
McKendly Newton, Waltor Worrock,
Ricky Grimes, Larry Morris,
George Jenkins, Rump, Bealum
a/k/a Renee Behlin, Keith Wallace,
John Barkley, Donaldson, Spalding,
M. Smart, and Ann Hallman,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 8:16-3811-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, Timothy A. Evans, a state prisoner 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 Civ. Rule 73.02, DSC,
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 Defendants
William R. Byars, Jr., Dennis Patterson, John R. Pate, Arthur Jordan, McKendly Newton, Waltor
Worrock, Ricky Grimes, Larry Morris, George Jenkins, Rump, Keith Wallace, John Barkley,
Donaldson, Spalding, M. Smart, and Ann Hallman be dismissed. (ECF No.126). Plaintiff was
advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 126-1). Plaintiff has failed to file
any objections, and the time to do so has now run. Additionally, the court notes that Plaintiff has
failed to respond to Defendant Bealum’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 123), despite
being warned of the consequences if he failed to respond. (ECF No. 124).

1

The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the court. 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, 270-71 (1976). In making that
determination, the court is charged with conducting a de novo review of those portions of the
Report to which either party specifically objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Then, the court may
accept, reject, or modify the Report or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge. Id.
Therefore, after a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court
adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 126). Moreover, because Plaintiff has also failed
to respond to the sole remaining Defendant Bealum’s pending summary judgment motion (ECF
No. 123), the court finds the entire action should be dismissed. Accordingly, Plaintiff's action is
DISMISSED 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 also
Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
February 16, 2018
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.

2