Opinion
C.A. No.: 2:17-cv-01334-BHH-MGB
11-01-2017
Kendall Baccus, #355137, Petitioner, v. Willie Eagleton, Evans Correctional Institution, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Petitioner brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. On August 28, 2017, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 19; see also Dkt. No. 18.) By Order of this Court filed August 29, 2017, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Petitioner was advised of the summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. (Dkt. No. 20.) Despite the explanation in the Roseboro Order, the Petitioner did not respond.
As the Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the Court filed an Order on October 6, 2017, giving the Petitioner through October 26, 2017, to file his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 23.) The Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond, this action would be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Petitioner did not respond.
Based on the foregoing, it appears the Petitioner no longer wishes to pursue this action. Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this Court's orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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 RECOMMENDED.
/s/_________
MARY GORDON BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE November 1, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina
The parties' attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n 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 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).