From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Watts v. Griswold

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Mar 10, 2017
Civil Action No. 8:15-3847-TMC (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2017)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 8:15-3847-TMC

03-10-2017

William T. Watts, II, Plaintiff, v. Marilee Griswold, Dr. McDonald, Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff William T. Watts, II, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 56). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 56-1). However, Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.

The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "in 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, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

After a thorough review of the record in this case, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 56) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) 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). Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 49) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Timothy M. Cain

United States District Judge March 10, 2017
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Watts v. Griswold

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Mar 10, 2017
Civil Action No. 8:15-3847-TMC (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2017)
Case details for

Watts v. Griswold

Case Details

Full title:William T. Watts, II, Plaintiff, v. Marilee Griswold, Dr. McDonald…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

Date published: Mar 10, 2017

Citations

Civil Action No. 8:15-3847-TMC (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2017)

Citing Cases

Shahan v. Watkins

This evidence was insufficient to show adverse possession. Wood v. McGuire, 15 Ga. 202; Watts v. Griswold, 20…

Rowland v. McLain

" Hilton v. Singletary, 107 Ga. 821, 827 ( 33 S.E. 715). "The cutting of timber will not constitute an…