Opinion
C/A 3:22-737-MGL-SVH
12-08-2022
Keith Donald Franklin, Plaintiff, v. Morgan Properties Payroll Services, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Shiva V. Hodges, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action against defendant Morgan Properties Payroll Services. On October 12, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss as a sanction for Plaintiff's alleged failure to meaningfully participate in discovery. [ECF No. 43]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of the motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response by November 14, 2022. [ECF No. 44]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the motion may be granted. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant's motion.
On November 21, 2022, the court ordered Plaintiff to advise by December 5, 2022, whether he wished to continue with this case. [ECF No. 48]. Plaintiff was further advised that if he failed to respond, the undersigned would recommend this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff filed no response. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
If the district judge accepts this recommendation, the pending motions will be rendered moot.
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).