Cokley v. Sharpe et al

Filing 37

ORDER RULING ON 35 Report and Recommendation; This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 11/16/2012. (mbro)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Edmund Cokley, Plaintiff, v. 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, Defendants. _____________________________________ ) Civil Action No.: 9:12-396-MGL ) ) ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 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 summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. recommendation has no presumptive weight. The 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?