Opinion
Civil Action No.:4:08-cv-3308-TLW-TER.
January 29, 2010
ORDER
Plaintiff, Eva Denise Commedo, ("plaintiff") brought this civil action, pro se, on September 29, 2008. (Doc. # 1).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. # 51). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court dismiss the case for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. # 51). In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. # 51). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.