Opinion
9:23-00584-RMG-MHC
09-07-2023
Dea'Shawn Harrison Plaintiff, v. Regina A. Gunnells; L. C. Knight; Captain S G. Branch; Major Brown; Amanda M. Leviner; Nurse Hazel; Officer Laretta Duke; Deon Cobbs; Terry Donial Woods, Jr.; Corporal Julius Bean, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MOLLY H. CHERRY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This a civil action filed by Plaintiff Dea'Shawn Harrison, who was a pretrial detainee at the Dorchester County Detention Center at the time he filed this action. Plaintiff is currently a pretrial detainee at the Berkeley County Detention Center. See ECF No. 5. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge.
In an Order (Proper Form Order) dated June 7, 2023, Plaintiff was given an opportunity to provide the necessary information and paperwork to bring the case into proper form for evaluation and possible service of process. Plaintiff was warned that failure to provide the necessary information (payment of the filing fee or a fully completed and signed Form AO-240 (Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit), a summons form listing every Defendant, and a completed and signed Form USM-285 for each Defendant named in the case) within the timetable set forth in the Proper Form Order would subject the case to dismissal. See ECF No. 7. In the Proper Form Order, Plaintiff was also notified of material deficiencies in the Complaint and given an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has not provided the necessary documents to bring his case into proper form.
Additionally, Plaintiff has not filed any amended complaint.
The time to bring this case into proper form has now lapsed, and Plaintiff has failed to bring his case into proper form or otherwise respond to the Proper Form Order. Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that this action be DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, in accordance with Rule 41, Fed.R.Civ.P. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied sub nom, Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084 (1990) (holding that district court's dismissal following an explicit and reasonable warning was not an abuse of discretion).
The Clerk shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff at his last known address. If Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for proceeding with this case as is set forth in the Proper Form Order within the time set forth for filing objections to this Report and Recommendation, the Clerk is directed to vacate this Report and Recommendation and return this file to the undersigned for further handling. However, if Plaintiff fails to do so, then at the end of the time for filing objections, the Clerk shall forward this Report and Recommendation to the District Judge for disposition. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d at 95 (Magistrate Judge's prior explicit warning that a recommendation of dismissal would result from Plaintiff failing to obey his order was proper grounds for the district court to dismiss suit when Plaintiff did not comply despite warning).[
After a litigant has received one explicit warning as to the consequences of failing to timely comply with an order of a Magistrate Judge, and has failed to respond to that order, the district court may, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), dismiss the complaint based upon the litigant's failure to comply with that court order. See Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33, 35-36 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ballard, 882 F.2d at 95-96 (holding that district court's dismissal following an explicit and reasonable warning was not an abuse of discretion).
The parties are also referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.
Notice of Right to File O bjections 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
Post Office Box 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
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).