From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hewitt v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Feb 2, 2011
Civil Action No. 0:09-cv-1515-RMG-PJG (D.S.C. Feb. 2, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 0:09-cv-1515-RMG-PJG.

February 2, 2011


ORDER


Plaintiff brought this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case was automatically referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) D.S.C. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing Plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute due to Plaintiff's failure to file an opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 40). Plaintiff has also failed to object to the R R. As shown herein, this Court has reviewed the Record for any errors of law and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's report.

Discussion

The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id.

Here the Magistrate Judge twice instructed Plaintiff of the importance of filing a response to a summary judgment motion. (Dkt. Nos. 76 83). Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to file any response. Further, Plaintiff has not objected to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 87). As a result, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the order of this Court and incorporates it herein.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any pending motions are terminated in light of this Order.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 2, 2011

Charleston, South Carolina


Summaries of

Hewitt v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Feb 2, 2011
Civil Action No. 0:09-cv-1515-RMG-PJG (D.S.C. Feb. 2, 2011)
Case details for

Hewitt v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

Case Details

Full title:Jeremy Allen Hewitt, Plaintiff, v. South Carolina Department of…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Feb 2, 2011

Citations

Civil Action No. 0:09-cv-1515-RMG-PJG (D.S.C. Feb. 2, 2011)