Strickland v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 22

ORDER RULING ON 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court overrules Plaintiff's objections to the R & R and adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 10/05/2017. (egra, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION Glen Strickland, Jr., Plaintiff, v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, SCDC Director Bryan P. Stirling, Lt. Deangelo Ford, Sgt. James Williams, Warden Cohen, Associate Warden Burton, Major James Parrish, Sgt. Tonya Johnson, Sgt. E. Walker, Officer NFN Daniels, Associate Warden A. W. Washington, Lt. Craig Backett, Broad River Correctional Institution, Sgt. M. Blackwell, Sgt. NFN Gaston, Officer NFN Tapp, Sgt. Marcus Russell, Unknown Named Kershaw SCDC Sergeant, Sgt. Frank Jeffers, Officer NFN Streety, Lt. NFN Bennett, Sgt. NFN Creel, and Unknown Named Broad River SCDC Sergeant, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No.: 9:16-cv-3671-PMD-BM ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant’s Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (ECF Nos. 20 & 17). Plaintiff does not make any specific objections to the R & R, which recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Galvez v. Horry County, No. 4:10-cv-3165-RBH, 2012 WL 1790311, at * 2 (D.S.C. May 17, 2012) (“[I]t is well established that a district court has authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute under the inherent authority possessed by district courts.”). Absent a timely, specific objection—or as to those portions of the R & R to which no specific objection is made—this Court “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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). The Court has reviewed the R & R for clear error and finds none. The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s difficulty in litigating his various claims. However, the Magistrate Judge has already thoroughly spelled out how to remedy the defects in his complaint. The Court emphasizes that the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims is without prejudice, meaning that he is not barred from bringing a new action on these same claims. The Court reiterates that any new complaint Plaintiff files must comply with the terms set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s proper form order (ECF No. 8). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections to the R & R and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. October 5, 2017 Charleston, South Carolina

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?