Hopkins v. Lark et al

Filing 45

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 42 Report and Recommendation and dismisses this matter without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 5/8/2018. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

Joshua Glenn Hopkins,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Lt. Luke Lark,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 8:17-1188-BHH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Joshua Glenn Hopkins’ pro se
complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations.
On February 5, 2018, Defendant Luke Lark filed a motion for summary judgment.
The Magistrate Judge issued an order on February 6, 2018, pursuant to Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the summary judgment
procedure and instructing him to respond to Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff failed to respond,
so on March 23, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed a second order giving Plaintiff until April
2, 2018, to respond to the motion. The order specifically advised Plaintiff that the action
would be dismissed for failure to prosecute if he failed to respond. Despite this warning,
Plaintiff failed to respond.
Accordingly, on April 9, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court dismiss
this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders and deadlines. Attached to
the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of his right to file written objections to the Report
within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only 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 recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident 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 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
this case should be dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond to
Defendant’s motion and to comply with the Court’s orders and deadlines.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 42) and
dismisses this matter without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
May 8, 2018
Charleston, South Carolina

3