Mitchell v. Dr. Boykin et al

Filing 60

ORDER ADOPTING 51 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Moreover, Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 36 ) is denied as moot. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 6/5/24. (rweb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Venable Mitchell,
a/k/a Venable Deon Mitchell,

C/A No. 8:23-cv-4771-JFA-BM

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Dr. Boykin, Dentist;
Mrs. Garcia, Dental Asst,
Defendants.
Venable Mitchell (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this civil action alleging
violations of his constitutional rights by defendants. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge
for pretrial proceedings.
After the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this
action issued a corresponding order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th
Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the importance of the motion and of the need for him to
file an adequate response. The order was mailed to Plaintiff but returned as undeliverable.
Plaintiff failed to notify the court of any change in address and therefore failed to comply
with this court’s orders. (ECF No. 7). Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order
directing Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 45).
Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond would result in this action being recommended
for dismissal for failure to prosecute. Id. at 2. Plaintiff failed to respond to the order.

1

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply, which has left this court with no means of
contacting him concerning this case, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared
a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”). (ECF No. 51). Within the Report, the
Magistrate Judge opines this action is subject to dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b). Id. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law
on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the
docket on April 12, 2024. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by
April 26, 2024. Id. Plaintiff failed to file objections. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions
of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th
Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this
Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not
required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report
and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s
Complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 41.

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). 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 the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
2

After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report,
this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.
(ECF No. 51). Consequently, this action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute
and failure to comply with court orders. Moreover, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF
No. 36) is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 5, 2024
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3