Rainey v. Fuller et al

Filing 77

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. This action is dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 8/16/2013.(cwhi, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Christopher Allan Rainey, Plaintiff, vs. Sgt. Roy Fuller; Debbie Y. Cooper; and Mrs. Taylor, Defendants. ______________________________________ ) C/A No. 9:12-362-JFA-BM ) ) ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) The pro se plaintiff, Christopher Allan Rainey, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety after he was assaulted by other inmates at the South Carolina Department of Corrections. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein he suggests that this court should dismiss the action for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation. The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and 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. 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). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on July 17, 2013. However, the plaintiff did not file objections and the time within which to do so has now expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Magistrate Judge has allowed the plaintiff numerous extensions of time to respond to the court’s various orders and the plaintiff has failed to do so. This court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the plaintiff meets all of the criteria for dismissal under Chandler Leasing v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 929 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. IT IS SO ORDERED. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge August 16, 2013 Columbia, South Carolina 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?