Mack v. Jackson et al

Filing 22

ORDER accepting 17 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. This action is hereby Dismissed without Prejudice. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 04/15/2020.(cpeg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Bernard Lamar Mack,

Case No. 9:18-cv-01081-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.

Order

NFN Jackson, et al.,
DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Bernard Lamar Mack, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action alleging
violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. The
matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(Report) filed by the magistrate judge to whom this case was assigned. ECF No. 17.
After reviewing the Complaint, the magistrate judge issued a proper form
order and mailed it to Plaintiff, but the order was returned, with the envelope marked
“return to sender[;] attempted – not known[;] unable to forward.” In the Report, the
magistrate judge recommends that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed under Rule 41(b) due
to his failure to comply with a prior order to keep his mailing address current, despite
being informed of the potential consequences of failing to do so. Plaintiff did not file
objections to the Report. This matter is now ripe for decision.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the
Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636.
In the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any
1

explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “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 & Accident

Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report. For the reasons stated by the
magistrate judge, the Report, ECF No. 17, is ACCEPTED. This action is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Senior United States District Judge
April 15, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

2