Opinion
Civil Action 2:20-3106-SAL-MGB
12-28-2021
Jesse Vernon LaLone, Plaintiff, v. Major Morton, Officer Judd, A. Porter, Bonnie, and Sergeant Brown, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARY GORDON BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This action has been filed by the Plaintiff, pro se and in forma pauperis, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. On September 20, 2021, Defendant Porter filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 44.) On September 21, 2021, this Court issued an Order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion. (Dkt. No. 45.) Plaintiff's response was due by October 22, 2021, and he has failed to respond to Defendant Porter's Motion.
On October 25, 2021, Defendant Judd filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 52.) On October 26, 2021, this Court issued an Order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion. (Dkt. No. 53.) Plaintiff's response was due by November 29, 2021, and he has failed to respond to Defendant Judd's Motion.
Recently, certain Court filings have been returned as undeliverable with the message that the post office is unable to forward. (See Dkt. Nos. 59; 60.) Thus, it appears Plaintiff is no longer located at his address of record. However, the Court is not aware of any other address at which 1 Plaintiff may be found. On December 9, 2020, the Court issued an Order advising Plaintiff, inter alia,
You are ordered to always keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing (Post Office Box 835, Charleston, South Carolina 29402) 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 is ended, you must comply with this order by immediately advising the Clerk of Court in writing of such change of address and providing the court with the docket number of all pending cases you have filed with this Court. Your failure to do so will not be excused by the Court.(Dkt. No. 12 at 6 (emphasis in original).)
Based on the foregoing, it appears Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action. It is therefore 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. 2
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). 3