Opinion
C. A. 0:23-6381-SAL-PJG
07-19-2024
Cory Filyaw, Plaintiff, v. Sonya Paz, Nurse Practitioner, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PAIGE J. GOSSETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The plaintiff, a self-represented pretrial detainee, brought this civil rights action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.).
On April 22, 2024, the court issued an order ruling on the plaintiff's motion seeking the issuance of subpoenas. (ECF No. 32.) This order was mailed to the plaintiff at the detention center, but on May 2, 2024 was returned to the Clerk of Court by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. (ECF No. 35.) The envelope notes that the plaintiff is no longer housed at the detention center. (Id.)
The court notes that when the plaintiff filed this action, he was specifically instructed as follows:
If your mailing address changes, you must notify the Clerk of Court in writing (901 Richland Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201) and provide the court with your new address. This assures that you will receive orders or other matters that specify deadlines for you to meet. If you miss a deadline because of your failure to notify the court that your address changed, your case may be dismissed, and your failure to notify the court will not be excused.
(Order, ECF No. 8 at 2.) The plaintiff has failed to comply with this order and the court has no way of contacting the plaintiff.
This order was not returned to the Clerk of Court as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service.
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with an order of the court. See Davis, 588 F.2d at 70; Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (stating that magistrate judge's prior explicit warning that a recommendation of dismissal would result from the plaintiff failing to obey his order was proper grounds for the district court to dismiss the suit when the plaintiff did not comply despite the warning), cert. denied sub nom, Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084 (1990); Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
The parties' 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
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).