Norman v. Burns et al
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; finding as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 10/4/2017.(cwhi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Rahmad I. Norman
Officer Burns, Warden Tim Riley,
Asst. Warden Lane, Lt. Reeves,
Officer Nelson, and NFN Albert,
Civil Action No. 9:17-cv-01552-TMC
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relieve pursuant
to Title 42, United States Code Section 1983. 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”),
that this case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s Proper Form Order (ECF No. 9) and failure
to heed the magistrate judge’s explicit warning that the case would be dismissed if the complaint
was not in proper form by the deadline for filing objections to the Report. (ECF No. 12).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and his right to bring the case to
proper form by the objection deadline. (ECF No. 12 at 2-3). However, Plaintiff did not file any
objections and did not bring the case into proper form. The time to do so 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,
270–71 (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 careful and thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set
forth above, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 12), which is incorporated herein by
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s Motion to
Proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
October 4, 2017
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.
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?