Opinion
Civil Action 2:21-3935-DCC-MGB
01-31-2023
Ya'Vaundre M. Richardson, Plaintiff, v. Dir. Ray; Lt. Sweat; Sgt. Davis; Sr. Cpl. Glisson; and Sr. Cpl. Gregg-Wright, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARY GORDON BAKER, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Ya'Vaundre M. Richardson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges various violations of his constitutional rights. (Id.) On July 25, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and served Plaintiff at his noticed address at Sumter-Lee Detention Center. (Dkt. Nos. 21; 21-9.) On that same day, 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. 22.) Plaintiff's response to Defendants' Motion was due by August 25, 2022. When Plaintiff failed to respond, the Court issued an Order extending Plaintiff's response deadline to September 20, 2022. (Dkt. No. 27.) Plaintiff still failed to respond.
The Court then located Plaintiff on the SCDC Inmate Locator website, which showed that he has been housed at Kirkland Correctional Institution (“Kirkland”) since August 29, 2022. Plaintiff has never filed a notice of change of address, despite the Court's Orders on this issue. (Dkt. Nos. 5; 9.) The Court issued an Order on September 26, 2022, directing that Defendants reserve their Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff at Kirklandand extended Plaintiff's response deadline to October 24, 2022. (Dkt. No. 29.) However, that Order was not sent to Plaintiff at Kirkland. Accordingly, the Court again extended Plaintiff's response deadline to November 21, 2022, and warned Plaintiff that a failure to respond to Defendants' Motion could result in the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), and for failure to comply with this Court's orders. (Dkt. No. 32.) This Order was mailed to Plaintiff at Kirkland, and he has still failed to respond to the Motion.
Defendants filed a certificate of service on September 29, 2022, certifying that they completed service of the Motion on Plaintiff by U.S. Mail. (Dkt. No. 31.)
Based on the foregoing, it appears the Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action. Accordingly, it is 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.
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).