Opinion
C. A. C/A 0:23-4838-SAL-SVH
02-05-2024
Alexis Carberry, Plaintiff, v. Lancaster County Sheriff Office, Lancaster County Magistrate Court, SCDMV, and SCDSS, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHIVA V. HODGES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations of her constitutional rights by the above-named defendants. On November 29, 2023, defendants Lancaster County Sheriff's Office and Lancaster County Magistrate's Court filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.[ECF Nos. 112-114]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising her of the importance of the motions and of the need for her to file adequate responses by January 3, 2024. [ECF No. 30]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if she failed to respond adequately, the motions may be granted. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the defendants' motions.
In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), defendants SCDMV and SCDSS must be served with copies of the summons and complaint by February 14, 2024. See ECF No. 26. Plaintiff has not yet filed proof of service as to these defendants.
On January 12, 2024, the court ordered Plaintiff to advise by January 26, 2024, whether she opposed the motions and wished for the court to dismiss Lancaster County Sheriff's Office and Lancaster County Magistrate's Court as parties to this action. [ECF No. 34]. Plaintiff was further advised that if she failed to respond, the undersigned would recommend Lancaster County Sheriff's Office and Lancaster County Magistrate's Court be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff filed no response. As such, it appears to the court that she does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon her case against these defendants. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends Lancaster County Sheriff's Office and Lancaster County Magistrate's Court be dismissed 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).