Griffin v. Tisdale ( 2021 )

psES DISTR Es or BN Sa ‘a oe Lie lk ak My! S Norse” IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION TERRANCE GRIFFIN, § Plaintiff, § § vs. § § Civil Action No. 0:20-04419-MGL RUDY TISDALE; PAUL FATA; MICHAEL § McCALL; CECILIA REYNOLDS; SCOTT § LEWIS; TIMOTHY RILEY, Kirkland CI § Warden; DENNIS BUSH, BRCI Warden; § and MICHAEL STEPHAN, BRCI Warden, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT PAUL FATA FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION Plaintiff Terrance Griffin (Griffin), proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above-named Defendants. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending Griffin’s claims against Defendant Paul Fata (Fata) be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on December 7, 2021. To date, Griffin has failed to file any 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, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Griffin’s claims against Fata are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b). Consequently, Fata’s motion to dismiss, ECF 55, is DEEMED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 29th day of December 2021, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.