Harrison v. Gunnells et al

Filing 41

ORDER RULING ON 39 Report and Recommendation and 35 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Prosecution. The Court ADOPTS the R & R as the Order of the Court (Dkt. No. 39) and DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 1/6/2025. (ltap, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dea’Shawn Harrison,
v.

Case No. 9:23-584-RMG

Plaintiff,
ORDER

L.C. Knight, Captain S.G. Branch, Major
Brown, and Nurse Hazel,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the
Magistrate Judge, recommending the Court dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No.
39). The Magistrate Judge issued two proper form orders to the Plaintiff and received no response.
The Magistrate Judge received a return of an order indicating that Plaintiff had been “released”
and no forwarding address was provided. Subsequently, Defendants moved to dismiss the case
under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Magistrate Judge issued an order advising Plaintiff
of the dismissal procedures if he failed to respond to the motion. Plaintiff made no response to the
motion. The Magistrate Judge then issued the R & R recommending the dismissal of the case for
failure to prosecute and placing Plaintiff on notice of the consequences if objections to the R & R
were not submitted within 14 days. No objections to the R & R have been filed.
I.

Standard
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a
de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made,
and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
1

Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the Report for clear error. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
II.

Discussion
The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably set forth the factual and legal issues in this

matter and correctly concluded that the case should be dismissed for a failure to prosecute.
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the R & R as the Order of the Court
(Dkt. No. 39) and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint.

_s/ Richard Mark Gergel___
Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge
January 6, 2025
Charleston, South Carolina

2