Opinion
C. A. 1:23-509-JD-SVH
06-25-2024
Johnathan Phillip Shuler, Plaintiff, v. Major Clark Ard; Head Nurse Abigail Porter; Georgetown County Detention Center, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECCOMENDATION
Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge
Johnathan Phillip Shuler (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action on February 6, 2022. [ECF No. i]. On January i6, 2024, Clark Ard (“Ard”) and Georgetown County Detention Center (“GCDC”) filed a motion to dismiss, and on January i8, 2024, Abigail Porter (“Porter”) filed a motion to dismiss. [ECF Nos. i8, 23]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered orders pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. i975), advising him of the importance of the motions and of the need for him to file adequate responses by February 20, 2024. [ECF No. 20, 25]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the motions may be granted. Id. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro orders, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motions to dismiss.
On February 26, 2024, the court ordered Plaintiff to advise by March 11, 2024, whether he wished to continue with this case. [ECF No. 27]. Plaintiff was further advised that if he failed to respond, the undersigned would recommend this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff filed no response. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this case. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
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).