Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-0268-MBS-BM
03-09-2016
William E. Danielson, Plaintiff, v. Infinity Business Group, Inc.,, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This action was originally filed by the Plaintiff in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit. It was subsequently removed to this Court by the Defendant on the grounds of diversity jurisdiction. The case has been stayed since September 2010 due to the Defendant being in bankruptcy proceedings. See Court Docket Nos. 32, 34.
Although the Plaintiff was originally represented by counsel, he is now proceeding pro se. See Court Docket No. 16. On March 3, 2016, an Order was mailed to Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff's copy of the Court's Order was returned to the Clerk of Court on March 8, 2016, with the envelope being marked "Return to sender, not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward". See Court Docket No. 83. The Court notes that a previous Order of the Court mailed to the Plaintiff was also returned as undeliverable. See Court Docket No. 77.
When Plaintiff became pro se, he was specifically instructed as follows:
You are ordered to always keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing...if your address changes for any reason, so as to assure that orders or other matters that specify deadlines for you to meet will be received by you. If as a result of your failure to comply with this order, you fail to meet a deadline set by this Court, your case may be dismissed for violating this order. Therefore, if you have a change of
address before this case has ended, you must comply with this order by immediately advising the Clerk of Court in wiring of such change of address....Your failure to do so will not be excused by the Court. (emphasis added)See Order filed March 17, 2010. It is readily apparent that Plaintiff has failed to comply with this order, and as a result neither the Court nor the Defendant have any means of contacting him concerning his case.
Based on the foregoing, and the previous instructions and specific warning given to the Plaintiff in the Court's Order of March 17, 2016, it is recommended that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, in accordance with Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.
The Clerk shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff at his last known address. If the Plaintiff notifies the Court within the time set forth for filing objections to this Report and Recommendation that he wishes to continue with this case and provides a current address, the Clerk is directed to vacate this Report and Recommendation and return this file to the undersigned for further handling. If, however, no objections are filed, the Clerk shall forward this Report and Recommendation to the District Judge for disposition.
The parties are also referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.
/s/_________
Bristow Marchant
United States Magistrate Judge March 9, 2016
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).