Tyler v. Brooks

Filing 29

ORDER adopting 27 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant dismissing this action with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 4/29/13.(hhil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
) Civil Action No.: 9:12-2828-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
ORDER
)
Ronald Brooks,
)
)
Defendant. )
_____________________________________ )
Larry James Tyler,

Plaintiff Larry James Tyler (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 on October 1, 2012, against Defendant alleging violations of his constitutional rights.
(ECF No. 1.) At the time of the underlying events, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Darlington
County Detention Center in Darlington, South Carolina.
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 March 25, 2013,
Magistrate Judge Marchant entered a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that
this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The Report of Magistrate Judge Marchant was mailed to Plaintiff advising
him of his right to file objections to the Report and the time frame in which he must do so. (ECF No.
27.) More specifically, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s Orders of January 18, 2013
(ECF No. 19), February 26, 2013 (ECF No. 21) and March 8, 2013 (ECF No. 25) directing Plaintiff
to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed on January 17, 2013. (ECF No. 18.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The 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). The court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter

to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court is charged with making
a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific
objections are made. Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 27 at 3.) However, he has not done so and objections were due on April
11, 2013. 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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir.2005).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation,
the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper. Accordingly, the Report and
Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice
pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
April 29, 2013