Hopson v. Mosley

Filing 12

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice forfailure 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). Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 6/1/2017.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Donald G. Hopson, Jr.,
Petitioner,
vs.
Warden Bonita Mosley,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 9:16-3537-TMC

ORDER

Petitioner, Donald G. Hopson, Jr., a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed this habeas
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before
the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that
the action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the
court’s order. (ECF No. 10). Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report.
(ECF No. 10 at 3). However, no objections have been filed to the Report, and the time to do has
now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. 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 record in this case, the court adopts the Report (ECF No.
10) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without 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 SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
June 1, 2017
Anderson, South Carolina

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.