Opinion
2:21-cv-02593-BHH-MGB
03-15-2022
Anthony Harris, PETITIONER, v. United States of America, RESPONDENT.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARY GORDON BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Anthony Harris, appearing pro se, has filed a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On October 18, 2021, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 17.) The next day, this Court issued an Order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Petitioner of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion. (Dkt. No. 18.) Petitioner's response was due on November 19, 2021. (Id.) On November 23, 2021, Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time and Notice of Change of Address. (Dkt. No. 20.) The Court granted Petitioner's request for additional time and extended the response deadline to December 20, 2021. (Dkt. No. 21.) On December 10, 2021, the Court further extended Petitioner's response deadline to ensure he received Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment at his noticed address. (Dkt. Nos. 25; 28.) Petitioner's response was due on January 10, 2022. (Dkt. No. 28.)
Petitioner still had not responded to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment on January 19, 2022. As such, the Court entered an Order directing Petitioner to respond by February 1, 2022. (Dkt. No. 30.) Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond, this action could be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) The Clerk of Court mailed this Order to Petitioner on January 19, 2022. (Dkt. No. 31.) It was returned as undeliverable on February 3, 2022. (Dkt. No. 32.)
In the interests of justice, the Court again extended Petitioner's response deadline. (Dkt. No. 33.) In its Order extending Petitioner's time to respond, the Court noted that Petitioner was moved to USP Atlanta in Atlanta, Georgia. (Id. at 2.) The Court reminded Petitioner of his obligation to keep the Clerk of Court advised of changes to his address. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner was again advised that if he failed to respond, this action could be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 3.) The Clerk of Court mailed a copy of the Court's Order to Petitioner at his Atlanta address. (Dkt. No. 34.) Petitioner's response to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment was due by March 1, 2022. (Dkt. No. 33.) Petitioner has failed to respond.
Based on the foregoing, it appears Petitioner no longer wishes to pursue this action. Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this Court's orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
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:
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).