BRYAN v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

Filing 100

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; finding as moot 81 Motion for Issuance of Subpoena; finding as moot 82 Motion for Default Judgment; finding as moot 83 Motion for Summary J udgment; finding as moot 89 Report and Recommendation. The Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. #1-1) is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 12/4/2013.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION

T. Terance Bryan,
aka Terrence Terell Bryan,
aka T Terell Bryan,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

C/A No.: 9:13-cv-01826-TLW

ORDER
On October 17, 2012, Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“Defendant”) removed
this civil action from New Jersey State Court to the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. #1). The case was transferred to the
District of South Carolina on June 28, 2013. (Doc. #50). In the case, pro se Plaintiff T. Terance
Bryan (“Plaintiff”) asserts that a drug, Buspar, provided to him in prison and allegedly
manufactured by the Defendant, caused the Plaintiff certain injuries. (Doc. #1-1). Following the
transfer of the case to the District of South Carolina, Plaintiff filed motions for issuance of a
subpoena, (Doc. #81), for default judgment, (Doc. #82), and for summary judgment, (Doc. #83).
Beginning on September 6, 2013, several documents were mailed to the Plaintiff, including an
Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Extension and a Report and Recommendation. (Docs.
#86, 90, 92). The mail in each case was returned and marked “Refused.” (Docs. #91, 93, 95).
Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant issued a Supplemental Report and Recommendation on

1

October 23, 2013, recommending dismissal of the case, with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. #96). This document was also mailed to the Plaintiff,
(Doc. #97), but again the mail was returned and marked “Refused,” (Doc. #98). Plaintiff did not
object to either the Report and Recommendation or Supplemental Report and Recommendation.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence
of objections to the Report, 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).
This Court has carefully reviewed the record and the Magistrate Judge’s Supplemental
Report and Recommendation. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Supplemental Report and Recommendation, (Doc. #96), is ACCEPTED.
The Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #1-1) is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff’s Motion for issuance of Subpoena, (Doc.
#81), Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. #82), and Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. #83),
and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, (Doc. #89), are terminated as moot in
light of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____s/Terry L. Wooten____
Chief United States District Judge

December 4, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina
2