Williams v. Warden FCI Estill

Filing 18

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; finding as moot 12 Motion for Summary Judgment. It is thereforeORDERED that the action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982). Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 8/28/2013.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Clinton Williams, #12783-021,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden FCI Estill,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 9:13-862-TMC

ORDER

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant made in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina
(“Report”).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific
objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation, or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
On June 27, 2013, the Respondent moved for summary judgment.

(ECF No. 12.)

Petitioner was advised of his right to respond to the Respondent’s motion on June 28, 2013 and
was specifically advised that if he failed to respond, this action would be dismissed for failure to
prosecute. (ECF No. 13). The Petitioner failed to respond.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report, recommending that this action be
dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. (ECF No. 16). Petitioner was advised of his
right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 16 at 3). However, the Petitioner did not file

objections.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the
court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16) and incorporates it
herein. It appears the Petitioner no longer wishes to prosecute this action. It is therefore
ORDERED that the action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez,
669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989). It is
further ORDERED that the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 12) is
DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
August 28, 2013

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.