Opinion
C. A. 1:24-19-RBH-SVH
03-11-2024
Edward Lee Dean, Plaintiff, v. Ofc. Dame, Sgt. Smith, Lt. Hall, Lt. Zapola, and IGC K. McKnight, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECCOMENDATION
SHIVA V. HODGES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Edward Lee Dean (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint on January 3, 2024, asserting allegations of constitutional violations during his incarceration in the South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”). On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to hold this case in abeyance until he exhausted his administrative remedies. [ECF No. 6]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge.
On January 10, 2024, the undersigned issued orders (1) directing Plaintiff to submit documents necessary to bring this case into proper form and (2) advising Plaintiff of the deficiencies of his complaint and permitting him until January 31, 2024, to file an amended complaint. [ECF Nos. 9, 10]. On February 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and some of the service documents, but failed provide the Forms USM-285 that are necessary for service of process. [ECF Nos. 13, 14]. On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff advised the court that his address changed from Perry Correctional Institution to what appears to be a private address.On February 13, 2024, the undersigned issued an order directing Plaintiff to provide the Forms USM-285 by March 5, 2024. Plaintiff was specifically advised “If Plaintiff does not bring this case into proper form within the time permitted by this order, this case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” [ECF No. 17].
A search for Plaintiff in SCDC's inmate locator no longer yields results. See https://public.doc.state.sc.us/scdc-public/ (last visited March 11, 2024).
Plaintiff has filed no response to the court's February 13, 2024 order.
Notwithstanding the court's orders, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court's orders to complete the documents necessary to advance this case. It is well established that a district court has authority to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute. “The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,' governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). In addition to its inherent authority, this court may also sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Id. at 630.
Based on Plaintiff's failure to respond to the court's order, the undersigned concludes he does not intend to pursue the above-captioned matter. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41.
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).