Opinion
C/A No. 3:18-1335-MGL-PJG
06-28-2019
Indigo Ocean Rose Kraim, Plaintiff, v. Columbia Police Department; Columbia Housing Authority; Richland County Sheriff Dept.; Richland Springs, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The plaintiff, Indigo Ocean Rose Kraim, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). By order dated May 7, 2019, the court provided Plaintiff the opportunity to file a second amended complaint to correct deficiencies identified by the court that would warrant summary dismissal of the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 53.) The court found that Plaintiff failed to state a recognizable legal cause of action but liberally construed the Amended Complaint as seeking to bring claims for violations of Plaintiff's civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state law tort claims. But, the court found Plaintiff failed to provide any facts that would plausibly show the defendants were liable to Plaintiff for the claims construed by the court, and consequently, warned Plaintiff that if she did not amend the Amended Complaint, it would be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Plaintiff did not respond to the court's order. Therefore, the court recommends this action be dismissed with prejudice for the reasons stated in the court's May 7 order. See Workman v. Morrison Healthcare, 724 F. App'x 280, 281 (4th Cir. 2018) (in a case where the district court had already afforded the plaintiff an opportunity to amend, directing the district court on remand to "in its discretion, either afford [the plaintiff] another opportunity to file an amended complaint or dismiss the complaint with prejudice, thereby rendering the dismissal order a final, appealable order") (citing Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015)). June 28, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina
Plaintiff also failed to respond to the court's order directing her to file the service documents necessary for the court to authorize the issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 54.)
/s/_________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff's attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.
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).