Opinion
C/A No. 2:17-CV-02637-BHH-MGB
05-23-2019
Lamarcus Alexander Stewart, Jr., PLAINTIFF, v. Richard Jenkins, Anita James, John R. Pate, Walter Worrick, McKendley Newton, DEFENDANTS.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Lamarcus Alexander Stewart, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. On March 19, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No 40.) On March 20, 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. No. 43.) Despite the explanation in the Roseboro Order, Plaintiff did not respond.
As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court filed an Order on April 26, 2019, giving Plaintiff through May 17, 2019, to file his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 45.) Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond, this action would be dismissed. Plaintiff did not respond.
Based on the foregoing, it appears 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 May 23, 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).