Sheriff v. Lewis
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. It is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. Objections to R&R due by 1/18/2017. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 1/4/2017. (cwhi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
) Civil Action No. 9:16-2921-TMC-BM
) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Scott Lewis, Warden,
David Dale Sheriff, # 171192,
The pro se Petitioner brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 28, United
States Code, Section 2254. On November 15, 2016, the Respondent filed a motion for summary
judgment. As the Petitioner is proceeding pro se, a Roseboro Order was entered by the Court on
November 16, 2016, advising Petitioner of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need
for him to file an adequate response. Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to file a
properly supported response, the Respondent’s motion may be granted, thereby ending his case.
However, notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions as set forth in the Court’s Roseboro
order, the Petitioner has failed to respond to the motion, or to contact the Court in any way.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Petitioner meets all of the criteria
for dismissal under Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982).1
Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution.
He is personally responsible for proceeding in a dilatory fashion, the Respondent is suffering
prejudice due to having to expend time and resources on a case in which the Petitioner is
unresponsive, and no sanctions other than dismissal appear to exist as the Petitioner is indigent (and
therefore not subject to monetary sanctions) and he has otherwise failed to respond to Court filings
despite Court orders requiring him to do so. Lopez, 669 F.2d at 920.
See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.
The Clerk shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Petitioner at his last
known address. If the Petitioner notifies the Court within the time set forth for filing
objections to this Report and Recommendation that he wishes to continue with this case and
provides a response to the motion for summary judgment, the Clerk is directed to vacate this
Report and Recommendation and return this file to the undersigned for further handling. If,
however, no objections are filed, the Clerk shall forward this Report and Recommendation to the
District Judge for disposition. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied sub
nom, Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084 (1990) [Magistrate Judge’s prior explicit
warning that a recommendation of dismissal would result from plaintiff failing to obey his order was
proper grounds for the district court to dismiss suit when plaintiff did not comply despite warning].2
The parties are referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.
United States Magistrate Judge
January 4, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina
After a litigant has received one explicit warning as to the consequences of failing to timely
comply with an order of a Magistrate Judge, and has failed to respond to that order, the district court
may, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), dismiss the complaint based upon the litigant’s failure to comply
with that court order. See Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33, 35-36 (4th Cir.1990); see also Ballard,
882 F.2d at 95-96 [holding that district court's dismissal following an explicit and reasonable
warning was not an abuse of discretion].
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and
Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the
Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n
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 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of
this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by
mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will
result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
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?