Opinion
C/A 3:23-1641-MGL-SVH
07-18-2023
Joanna G. Bieger and Andrew Bieger, Plaintiff, v. City of Sumter; Sumter Police Department; Sargent Jeremy VanAllen; Sargent James Sinkler; Kendra Dow-King; and Detective Andrea DiCicco, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHIVA V. HODGES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's failure to respond to the court's order and rule to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. This matter has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(b)(2)(e) (D.S.C.).
On May 1, 2023, defendants Dow-King, Sinkler, VanAllen, Sumter Police Department, and the City of Sumter filed a motion for partial dismissal. On May 9, 2023, defendant DiCicco filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has not filed responses to either motion. By email dated May 24, 2023, chambers noted no responses had been filed and asked if the parties have resolved this case or whether Plaintiff intended to file a request for an extension to respond. Defense counsel responded that they had not had any correspondence with Plaintiff's counsel regarding the motions, and Plaintiff's counsel did not respond.
In light of the foregoing, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show cause by June 14, 2023, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Defendants' motions or the court's order. As such, it appears to the court that Plaintiff wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff's case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
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 901 Richland Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201
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).