Knight v. Nash

Full title: Jonathan L. Knight, Plaintiff, v. Sheriff Ray Nash, individually, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

Date published: Sep 10, 2008

Civil Action No.: 3:07-3781-TLW-JRM (D.S.C. Sep. 10, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No.: 3:07-3781-TLW-JRM.

September 10, 2008

ORDER

TERRY WOOTEN, District Judge

Plaintiff, Jonathan L. Knight, ("plaintiff") brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. #1). The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on April 10, 2008. (Doc. #22). On April 11, 2008, the plaintiff was provided a copy of the motion and was given an explanation of the summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately, as required by Rosoboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4^th Cir. 1975). (Doc. # 24). Despite this explanation, the plaintiff did not respond. As the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court filed a second order on June 4, 2008, allowing the plaintiff an additional fifteen (15) days in which to advise the court whether he wished to continue this action. (Doc. #28). The plaintiff was specifically advised that if failed to respond, this action would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The plaintiff has not responded to the order.

This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey, to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. #31). In the Report, Magistrate Judge McCrorey recommends that the District Court "dismiss the action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 41(b)" for failure to prosecute. (Doc. #31). Objections to the Report were due July 14, 2008. The plaintiff has filed no objections to the Report.

This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4^th Cir. 1983).

The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED (Doc. #31) and the plaintiff's action is dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.