Opinion
C/A No. 1:11-2298-JFA-SVH
02-01-2012
Bernard Maloyd, Plaintiff, v. Aiken County Sheriff's Office Detention Center; Aiken Co. Detention Center Medical Dept.; Aiken Co. Detention Center Dentist (Dr. S. Taylor Garnett), Defendants.
ORDER
The pro se plaintiff, Bernard Maloyd, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein she suggests that this action should be dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge notes that on January 10, 2012, an order was entered pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) and mailed to the plaintiff, but it was returned to sender. Then, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation was entered on January 19, 2012, and it was returned to the Clerk's office, undeliverable to addressee. The Magistrate Judge had previously entered an order directing the plaintiff to keep the court apprised of any change in his address, yet the plaintiff has failed to do so. Thus, neither the court nor the defendants have any means of contacting the plaintiff concerning this case.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation proper and incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice in accordance with Rule 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 1, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge