Opinion
C/A No.: 5:11-cv-02091-GRA-KDW
06-28-2012
Steven Trotman, Petitioner, v. Warden Stevenson, Respondent.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court for review of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West's Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., and filed on May 17, 2012. Plaintiff filed this action on August 9, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on November 30, 2011. After receiving an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) on December 1, 2011, the Petitioner requested three extensions of time in which to file a response. The court granted all three extensions in which he had to file responses to the Respondent's motion for summary judgment. On April 25, the court ordered Petitioner to advise whether he wished to continue with the case by May 11, 2012. Nevertheless, Petitioner never filed any response to the Respondent's motion for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge West recommends that this Court dismiss Petitioner's petition with prejudice for failure to prosecute. This Court adopts the magistrate's recommendation in its entirety.
Petitioner brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982).
The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id. In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th. Cir. 1983). Petitioner has filed no objections.
After a review of the record, this Court finds that the magistrate's Report and Recommendation accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________
G. Ross Anderson, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
June 28, 2012
Anderson, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff has the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of this Order, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal.