Opinion
C/A No. 3:19-2193-MGL-PJG
01-29-2020
Clarence Hanna, Plaintiff, v. VA Regional, M of SC; Zivia Ann Hanna; Senior Helper, SC; Safe Credit, SC, Defendants.
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The court issued a Report and Recommendation on October 2, 2019 (ECF No. 15), recommending this matter be summarily dismissed because Plaintiff did not keep an updated address with the court and his mail was being returned to the court as undeliverable. Plaintiff ultimately filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation indicating that Plaintiff wanted to continue with this case, and this matter was referred back to the assigned magistrate judge. The court issued a second proper form order on December 17, 2020, directing Plaintiff to file the documents necessary to bring this case into proper form for the issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff has not responded to that order and the deadline for a response has passed.
Consequently, the court hereby supplements its October 2, 2019 Report and Recommendation. In addition to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute, this matter should be summarily dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's orders. See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) ("The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recognize that courts must have the authority to control litigation before them, and this authority includes the power to order dismissal of an action for failure to comply with court orders.") (citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)).
/s/_________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE January 29, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina
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).