Opinion
Civil Action 2:22-02163-BHH-MGB
09-15-2023
Broderick Deon Tate, Plaintiff, v. Captain Wells, et al, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARY GORDON BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This action has been filed by the Plaintiff, pro se, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging his constitutional rights were violated as to his medical care. (Dkt. No. 1.) On July 3, 2023, Defendant Mrs. Lydia filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 45.) On July 6, 2023, Defendants Captain Wells and Mrs. Jenson filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 48.) This Court then issued Orders 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 motions. (Dkt. Nos. 46; 49.)
On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Continuance and Extension of Time” asking that the Court continue the case until Plaintiff “can get a lawyer to take over on my behalf.” (Dkt. No. 51.) The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion in part, and extended Plaintiff's response deadline to September 4, 2023. (Dkt. No. 53.) The Court expressly advised Plaintiff that there is no constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case, and warned Plaintiff that failure to respond to the pending motions could result in the dismissal of his case, with prejudice. (Id.) Plaintiff has still failed to respond to the pending motions.
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).