Opinion
2:22-cv-03293-JFA-MGB
10-21-2022
Robin Bairefoot, Plaintiff, v. Barnwell County Detention Center, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARY GORDON BAKER, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review all pretrial matters in this case and submit findings and recommendations to the assigned United States District Judge. For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned recommends that this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice.
Rebecca Bales (“Bales”), a state detainee at the Barnwell County Detention Center, filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of herself and seven other detainees, including Plaintiff Robin Bairefoot (“Bairefoot”).(See Case No. 2:22-cv-02604-JFA-MGB.) Upon reviewing the initial pleading, the undersigned issued a proper form order explaining that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) bars multiple prisoner plaintiffs from joining their claims together in one action and therefore separated the claims into discrete civil cases. (Dkt. No. 1.) Bairefoot's case, Case No. 2:22-cv-03293-JFA-MGB, is now before the Court on initial review.
Although Bales apparently filed the action, each of the eight detainees signed the initial pleading. (See Case No. 2:22-cv-02604-JFA-MGB, Dkt. No. 1 at 8-9.)
The undersigned's proper form order informed Bairefoot that the Clerk could not authorize service of process in her case until she filed her respective application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee. (Id. at 2.) The undersigned gave Bairefoot twenty-one days to do so, and warned her that if she did not comply with the instructions within the time permitted, her case would be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of this Court under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) However, Bairefoot apparently did not receive the order, as it was returned to the Court as undeliverable mail, with a handwritten note on the envelope stating, “Return to Sender.” (Dkt. No. 6.) Consequently, Bairefoot has not responded to the Court's order, and the time to comply has now lapsed. The record indicates no attempt by Bairefoot to contact the Court since Bales' filing of the initial pleading, and the only listed address on file for Bairefoot is the Barnwell County Detention Center, where the Clerk sent the rejected proper form order in the first instance. Accordingly, the undersigned is constrained to RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Bairefoot's action at this time, without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962).
The Clerk of Court shall mail a hardcopy of this Report and Recommendation to Bairefoot at her last known address in an abundance of caution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Plaintiff's 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).