Opinion
Civil Action No. 2:18-02359-HMH-MGB
06-20-2019
Terrance L. Mayo, Plaintiff, v. Allendale Correctional Institution, et al, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This action has been filed by Plaintiff, pro se and in forma pauperis, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. On April 12, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 21.) On April 15, 2019, this Court issued an Order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion. (Dkt. Nos. 22.) The Order stated that Plaintiff's response to Defendants' motion was due by May 16, 2019.
On May 22, 2019, the Court issued an Amended Roseboro Order. (Dkt. No. 25.) In this Amended Order, the Court noted that the SCDC Inmate Locator website indicated Plaintiff had been incarcerated at Lieber Correctional Institution since January 20, 2019. The Court noted that Defendants attached to their Motion for Summary Judgment a certificate of service, certifying that they served Plaintiff the motion and accompanying memo and exhibits at Lieber Correctional Institution. The Court further noted that while the April 15, 2019 Roseboro Order had not been returned as undeliverable, it was apparently sent to Plaintiff's prior address at Allendale Correctional Institution. In an abundance of caution, the Court issued the Amended Roseboro Order and extended the time for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' motion to June 14, 2019. The Court reminded Plaintiff that he was always to keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing of his address changes for any reason, so as to assure that orders or other matters that specify deadlines for Plaintiff to meet will be received by him. Plaintiff submitted a change of address form on June 12, 2019, providing his address at Lieber Correctional Institution. (Dkt. No. 28.) However, Plaintiff has still failed to respond to Defendants' motion.
Based on the foregoing, it appears the Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action. Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this Court's orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
/s/_________
MARY GORDON BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE June 20, 2019 Charleston, South Carolina
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
Post Office Box 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
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).