From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pruitt v. Troutman

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division
Apr 30, 2009
C/A No. 9:08-cv-3048-GRA (D.S.C. Apr. 30, 2009)

Opinion

C/A No. 9:08-cv-3048-GRA.

April 30, 2009


ORDER (Written Opinion)


This matter comes before the Court to review the magistrate's Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., filed on March 26, 2009. The magistrate now recommends that this Court dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for lack of prosecution. For the reasons stated herein, this Court adopts the magistrate's recommendation.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed the instant suit seeking relief pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. On February 17, 2009, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The magistrate issued a Rosboro order on February 19, 2009 warning the plaintiff of the consequences of a failure to respond. The plaintiff did not respond. Therefore, the magistrate recommends dismissing this suit pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. A copy of the Report was mailed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not respond to the Report and Recommendation.

Standard of Review

Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982).

The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id. In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th. Cir. 1983). Plaintiff did not file any objections.

Conclusion

After a review of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation, applicable case law, and the record, this Court finds that the magistrate applied sound legal principles to the facts of this case. Therefore, this Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

IT IS THEREFORE SO ORDERED THAT the plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date of its entry. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal.


Summaries of

Pruitt v. Troutman

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division
Apr 30, 2009
C/A No. 9:08-cv-3048-GRA (D.S.C. Apr. 30, 2009)
Case details for

Pruitt v. Troutman

Case Details

Full title:Levi Pruitt, Plaintiff, v. Officer Troutman, Badge 602, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division

Date published: Apr 30, 2009

Citations

C/A No. 9:08-cv-3048-GRA (D.S.C. Apr. 30, 2009)