Cokley v. Sharpe et al
ORDER RULING ON 35 Report and Recommendation; This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 11/16/2012. (mbro)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Major K. Sharpe, Captain Kelly, Cpt. Coleman,
Cpt. Angela Brown, Sgt. Toney, Sgt. Harris, Sgt.
Heneken, Sgt. Epps, Officer Epps, Officer Taft,
Igt. Chris Voll, Officer Pompey, Lt. June, Sgt.
Jones, Sgt. Brown, A. W. Bradshaw, A. W.
Cochran, and Warden Onling,
) Civil Action No.: 9:12-396-MGL
Plaintiff Edmund Cokley (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 13, 2012, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (ECF
No. 1.) At the time of the fling of this action, Plaintiff was an inmate incarcerated at the
Turbeville County Detention Center. Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations. (ECF No. 22.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for pretrial handling. On
August 30, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing there were
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (ECF No. 30-1,14.) On September 4, 2012, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Roseboro Order instructing Plaintiff that he had thirty-four days
to respond to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 31). The Roseboro
Order stated that the Court may grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment if Plaintiff
did not file a response by the deadline. (Id.). Notwithstanding these instructions, Plaintiff did
not file a response to Defendants' motion. On October 11, 2012, the Magistrate Judge
issued an Order giving Plaintiff and additional ten days to respond to Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge once again advised Plaintiff that the Magistrate
Judge would recommend that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute if Plaintiff did not
file a response within ten days from the date of the order. (ECF No. 33.)
To this date,
Plaintiff has not filed any response to the Magistrate's Order or Defendants' motion for
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight.
The responsibility for making a final
determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270, 96 S.Ct. 549,
46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made and this
Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where, as in this case, the Plaintiff fails to
file any specific objections, the Magistrate Judge's conclusions are reviewed only for clear
error, see Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.2005),
and this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation of the
Magistrate. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir.1983).
Upon review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation,
the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper. As the Magistrate
Judge explained in his Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this
case and meets all criteria for dismissal under Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F,2d
919 (4th Cir.1982). Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
November 16, 2012
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?