Opinion
4:22-02312-JD-KDW
07-19-2024
RALPH WILSON, JR., personally and as Agent/Owner/Operator of Ralph Wilson Law PC d/b/a Ralph Wilson Law Firm LLC, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CHIVATTONI; OFFICER SHANNON; HORRY COUNTY CLERK OF COURT; GRAY MEDIA GROUP, INC d/b/a GRAY TELEVISION, INC. d/b/a WMBF; GRAY MEDIA GROUP, INC. d/b/a GRAY TELEVISION, INC. d/b/a WIS; SUN NEWS; FITSNEWS, LLC; SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC. d/b/a WPDE.; and MYRTLE BEACH S.C. NEWS, Defendants.
ORDER
Joseph Dawson, III United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court with a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the District of South Carolina. (See DE 118.) Plaintiff Ralph Wilson, Jr. (“Wilson” or “Plaintiff”) initially filed this action in state court on May 31, 2022, and it was initially removed to this Court on July 19, 2022. Plaintiff alleged multiple causes of action against twenty-five named Defendants. (See DE 1.) This Court issued a scheduling order on August 18, 2022. (See DE 10.) Multiple Defendants moved to be dismissed. (See DE 5; 15; 18; 19; 22; 27; 29; 40.) Several Defendants were dismissed by way of Stipulations of Dismissal with Prejudice. (See DE 11; 31; 39; 59; 60.) But Plaintiff opposed three motions filed by Defendants South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (“SLED”), Ashley Jolda, and Kevin Strickland (collectively, the “SLED Defendants”) (See DE 27); the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Myrtle Beach Police Department, Prock, Macklin, Fullwood, Paitsel, Clothier, Devoid, and Cook, (see DE 40); and the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Kevin Brackett. (See DE 75.) Before any rulings, the Court granted a Joint Motion to Stay the Scheduling Order (see DE 72), pending resolution of the pending dispositive motions. The Court instructed the parties to file a joint motion with a proposed amended scheduling order for the Court to consider, pending resolution of the dispositive motions. (See DE 72.)
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
On July 31, 2023, the Court docketed three Reports and Recommendations, recommending that the pending Motions to Dismiss be granted. (See DE 87, 88, 89.) On September 22, 2023, these recommendations were adopted, and an Order granting all three Motions to Dismiss was docketed. (See DE 98.) Plaintiff appealed these rulings on October 20, 2023. (See DE 104.) On April 2, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Local Rule 45. (See DE 113-1.) On April 9, 2024, this Court issued a text order directing Plaintiff to provide a status report as to the current posture of the case on or before April 23, 2024. (See DE 114.) To date, the parties have not provided the Court a joint proposed amended scheduling order, nor has Plaintiff responded to the text order issued by this Court on April 9, 2024. The case has been pending without any filing from Plaintiff since October 26, 2023, when Plaintiff filed the Notice of Docketing from the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
On April 25, 2024, after not having received a response from Plaintiff despite the Court's text order issued April 9, 2024, this Court issued another order, directing Plaintiff to advise the Court whether he wished to continue with his case and provide a status update by May 24, 2024. (See DE 115.) Plaintiff was specifically advised that a failure to respond would result in this action being dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Despite this warning, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any response.
The Report was issued on May 28, 2024, recommending this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (See DE 118.) No objections to the Report were filed. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court 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, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, after a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Therefore, the Court adopts the Report (See DE 118) and incorporates it here by reference.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's case is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from this date under Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.