Williams v. Rhymer ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Allen Charron Williams, Jr., ) Case No. 4:18-cv-01451-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) ) Joseph Rhymer, Christopher Brently, ) Captain Robert E. Padgett, Major ) Steven Anderson, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) 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 Thomas E. Rogers, III, for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on December 17, 2018. ECF No. 25. On December 19, 2018, this Court 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. 27. Plaintiff requested and was a granted an extension of time to respond to the motion. Despite the explanation of the summary judgment/dismissal procedure and the possible consequences for failing to respond, Plaintiff did not respond to the motion. On March 12, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this case be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 29. 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. Instead of objections to the Report, Plaintiff filed a second motion for extension of time to respond to the motion. The Court found the Report moot and referred the motion for extension of time to the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff until July 19, 2019, to respond to the motion. Plaintiff filed no response. On July 23, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the case be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 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 filed no objections, and the time to do so has lapsed. 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) for failure to prosecute.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge August 19, 2019 Spartanburg, 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. 1 Defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment [25] is FOUND as MOOT.