Opinion
C. A. 1:23-4139-BHH-SVH
02-27-2024
Abin Lowman, Plaintiff, v. Capt. Harold; Nurse Harold; and A/W Duffie, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Shiva V. Hodges, United States Magistrate Judge
Abin Lowman (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint alleging Capt. Harold, Nurse Harold, and A/W Duffie violated his constitutional rights. [ECF No. 1]. By order dated October 30, 2023, service of process of the complaint was authorized. [ECF No. 15]. On January 17, 2024, the summons for Capt. Harold and Nurse Harold were returned unexecuted. [ECF No. 23]. In the “Remarks” section of the Form USM-285, the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) indicated the SCDC Office of General Counsel could not accept service for these defendants because Capt. Harold could not be found in a Human Resources search and that Nurse Harold had never worked at Perry Correctional Institution. Id.
Plaintiff was previously warned: “Plaintiff must provide, and is responsible for, information sufficient to identify defendants on the Forms USM-285. The United States Marshal cannot serve an inadequately identified defendant. Unserved defendants may be dismissed as parties to this case if not served within the time limit governed by Rule 4(m) and this order.” [ECF No. 15]. On January 22, 2024, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to complete by February 12, 2024, a Form USM-285 that provides additional information to allow the USMS to serve Capt. Harold and Nurse Harold. Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to do so, the undersigned would recommend this case be dismissed as to Capt. Harold and Nurse Harold.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's order, Plaintiff failed to respond to the court's order. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the dismissal of Capt. Harold and Nurse Harold. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends Capt. Harold and Nurse Harold be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
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).