Allah v. Hensley et al
ORDER AND OPINION adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the Courts orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 3/2/2017.(cwhi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Lt. Hensley and Lt. Shatto,
Civil Action No. 9:16-459-BHH
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff Rateek Allah (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Bristow Marchant for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation.
On February 8, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
which recommends that the case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m)
for failure to make proper service or, in the alternative, with prejudice for failure to
prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (ECF No. 35.) 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 (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 authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has
generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by
the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S.
626, 630–31 (1962). As well as inherent authority, this Court may sua sponte dismiss a
case for lack of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Id. at 630.
Plaintiff filed no objections, and the time to do so expired on February 27, 2017.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
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 and advisory committee’s note).
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 for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply
with the Court’s orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
March 2, 2017
Greenville, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?