Opinion
2:22-cv-01035-BHH-MGB
02-23-2023
Andre Skanes, Plaintiff, v. J. Miles, A. Armstead. Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARY GORDON BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Andre Skanes (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action on March 31, 2022. Plaintiff alleges claims of excessive force following a traffic stop pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No. 1.) On November 7, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss.0F (Dkt. No. 29.) On November 8, 2022, 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. No. 30.) On November 15, 2022, the Court ordered Defendants to file a memorandum supporting their Motion to Dismiss and extended Plaintiff's deadline to respond to the Motion to December 30, 2022. (Dkt. No. 33.) When Plaintiff failed to respond to the Motion, the Court entered an Order extending Plaintiff's response deadline to January 30, 2023. (Dkt. No. 38.) The Court warned Plaintiff that a failure to respond to Defendants' Motion could result in the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), and for failure to comply with this Court's orders. (Dkt. No. 38.) Plaintiff has still failed to respond to the Motion.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C., all pretrial matters in cases involving pro se litigants are referred to a United States Magistrate Judge.
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.
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).