Opinion
C. A. 3:23-1203-JFA-SVH
02-14-2024
Floyd E. Brown, II, Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge
In this case, Floyd E. Brown II (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, alleges that employees of the Wal-Mart located at 321 Killian Road, Columbia, South Carolina (“Defendant”) falsely accused him of shoplifting, resulting in his wrongful arrest.
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's failure to respond to the court's order and rule to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute as well as Defendant's motion to dismiss. This matter has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(b)(2)(e) (D.S.C.).
On August 9, 2023, the undersigned granted Defendant's motion to compel and denied Plaintiff's motion to forbid discovery and disclosure. [ECF No. 26]. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to show cause that the court granted on October 2, 2023, directing Plaintiff to show cause on or before October 16, 2023, why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to participate in discovery and failure to comply with this court's order directing the same. [ECF No. 38]. Plaintiff failed to respond.
On November 15, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed for failure to participate in discovery and failure to comply with the court's order directing the same. [ECF No. 40]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of the motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response by December 18, 2023. [ECF No. 41]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the motion may be granted. Plaintiff failed to respond.
It appears to the court that Plaintiff wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff's case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
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
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
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).