Opinion
2:21-cv-03935-DCC
01-31-2023
Ya'Vaundre M. Richardson, Plaintiff, v. Dir. Ray, Lt. Sweat, Ssgt. Davis, Sr. Cpl. Glisson, and Sr. Cpl. Gregg-Wright, Defendants.
ORDER
Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff's complaint alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On July 25, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 21. On that same day, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.1975), advising Plaintiff of the summary judgment/dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. ECF No. 22. Despite the explanation of the summary judgment/dismissal procedure and the possible consequences for failing to respond, Plaintiff did not respond. On September 6, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a response by September 20, 2022. ECF No. 56. Plaintiff did not file a response. On September 26, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order directing Defendants to re-serve their Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff and extended Plaintiff's response deadline to October 24, 2022. ECF No. 29. On November 2, 2022, the Magistrate Judge again extended Plaintiff's response deadline to November 21, 2022, and warned Plaintiff that a failure to respond could result in dismissal of his claims for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and for failure to comply with this Court's orders. ECF No. 32. Plaintiff did not respond. On November 29, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the motion for summary judgment be found as moot. ECF No. 35. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff failed to file objections and the time in which to do so has lapsed.
The Court specifically incorporates the Magistrate Judge's discussion regarding the Court's attempts to mail documents to Plaintiff's address. ECF No. 35 at 1-2.
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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)).
As stated above, Plaintiff has not objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report. Accordingly, after considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The motion for summary judgment [21] is FOUND as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.