Opinion
C. A. 1:23-3906-MGL-SVH
07-22-2024
Jamaal Hinson, Petitioner, v. Bryan Stirling, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brought this action requesting a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on February 7, 2024. [ECF No. 24]. As Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. i975), advising him of the importance of the motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response by March ii, 2024. [ECF No. 25]. Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Respondent's motion may be granted, thereby ending this case. Id. On March ii, 2024, the court received a letter from Petitioner indicating he had not received the motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 29]. The court then ordered Respondent to ensure Petitioner had access and advise the court of the same. On April 3, 2024, Respondent indicated Petitioner was served with the motion by March 20, 2024. [ECF No. 32]. The court issued a new Roseboro order on April 4, 2024, advising Petitioner of the importance of the motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response by May 6, 2024. [ECF No. 33]. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, Petitioner has failed to respond to the motion.
On May 28, 2024, the court ordered Petitioner to advise by June 10, 2024, whether he wished to continue with this case. [ECF No. 35]. Petitioner was further advised that if he failed to respond, the undersigned would recommend this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Petitioner filed no response. On June 11, 2024, the court's May 28, 2024 order was returned in the mail. [ECF No. 37]. A return to sender stamp on the envelope has an “X” mark next to “Discharged.”
Plaintiff was previously ordered to keep the court apprised of any change in his address:
You are ordered to always keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing (United States District Court, 901 Richland Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201) if your address changes for any reason, so as to assure that orders or other matters that specify deadlines for you to meet will be received by you. If as a result of your failure to comply with this order, you fail to meet a deadline set by this court, your case may be dismissed for violating this order. Therefore, if you have a change of address before this case is ended, you must comply with this order by immediately advising the Clerk of Court in writing of such change of address and providing the court with the docket number of all pending cases you have filed with this court. Your failure to do so will not be excused by the court.[ECF Nos. 4, 10]. Plaintiff has not notified the court of any change of address at which he can be reached. He has failed to comply with the court's order, and as a result, the court has no means of contacting him concerning his case.
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that this action be dismissed in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The Clerk is directed to send this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff at his last known address of record. If Plaintiff notifies the court within the time set for filing objections to this Report and Recommendation that he wishes to continue with this case and provides a current address, the Clerk is directed to vacate this Report and Recommendation and return the file to the undersigned for further handling. If, however, no objections are filed, the Clerk is to forward this Report and Recommendation to the district judge for disposition.
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).