Opinion
Civil Action 2:22-cv-00132
01-13-2023
MICHAEL MILLER EL, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL, Defendant.
PROPOSED FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
Dwane L. Tinsley United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is assigned to the Honorable John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior United States District Judge, and by standing order entered on January 4, 2016, and filed in this case on March 10, 2022, this matter is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for submission of proposed findings and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff Michael Miller El (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint in this matter on March 10, 2022, along with an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The Complaint named only the South Central Regional Jail as a defendant. (ECF No. 2.) On December 8, 2022, the undersigned conducted a review of the filings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and entered an Order requiring Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint no later than January 5, 2023. (ECF No. 4.) The undersigned's order specifically notified Plaintiff that his failure to do so would result in the undersigned's recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 4 at 4-5.) To date, however, Plaintiff has neither filed an Amended Complaint as ordered, nor made any other filing on the record. Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the presiding District Judge DISMISS this action for lack of prosecution.
The parties are notified that this Proposed Findings and Recommendation is hereby FILED, and a copy will be submitted to the Honorable John T. Copenhaver, United States District Judge. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of the filing of this Proposed Findings and Recommendation to file with the Clerk of this Court specific written objections identifying the portions of the Proposed Findings and Recommendation to which objection is made and the basis of such objection. Extension of this time period may be granted by the presiding District Judge for good cause shown. Copies of any objections shall be provided to the opposing party or, if represented by counsel, to counsel, and to Judge Copenhaver.
Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to file this Proposed Findings and Recommendation and to mail a copy of the same to Plaintiff and to transmit a copy to counsel of record.