You're viewing Docket Item 36 from the case Godfrey v. Mueller et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




9:12-cv-02153-RMG Date Filed 07/30/13 Entry Number 36 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COiJl~CLrrF!~!!,~~<TJSLH('SC
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

BEUAFORT DIVISION

Z6I3 JUL 30 P 3: 28

Plaintiff,

v.

Ricky Godfrey,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

)

)

-------------------------)

Sheriff Steven Mueller and
Nurse Margaret Stephens,

Defendants.

CIA No. 9:12-2153-RMG

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation, ("R&R"), of the

Magistrate Judge recommending dismissal of this pro se section 1983 action with prejudice for

lack of prosecution. (Dkt. No. 33). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R&R as

the order of the Court, DISMISSES this action with prejudice, and DENIES as moot Defendants'

pending motion for summary jUdgment, (Dkt. No. 25).

Background

Plaintiff filed this pro se claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 1, 2012. (Dkt.

No.1). This matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)

and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) DSC for all pretrial proceedings.

On April 24, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 25). On

May 8, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued an order, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d

309 (4th Cir. 1975), directing the clerk to forward an explanation of the summary judgment and

dismissal proceedings to Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 28). Further, the order directed Plaintiff to respond

to the motion for summary judgment by June 13, 2013.

(ld). On June 26, 2013, with no

response to the motion for summary judgment having been received, the Magistrate Judge issued

9:12-cv-02153-RMG Date Filed 07/30/13 Entry Number 36 Page 2 of 3

another order instructing Plaintiff that failure to respond within ten (10) days would result in a

recommendation of dismissal for lack of prosecution. (Dkt. No. 30). After no response was

received from Plaintiff, on July 9, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued the R&R recommending

that the claim be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. (Dkt. No. 33). Plaintiff filed

no objections to the R&R.

Legal Standard

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation

has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this

Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court may "accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In reviewing these pleadings, the Court is mindful of its charge to construe

liberally the pleadings of this pro se litigant. See, e.g., De 'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630,633

(4th Cir. 2003).

Discussion

The Magistrate Judge dutifully reviewed the pleadings, accurately summarized the law,

and correctly concluded that the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs section 1983 claim for lack of

prosecution. (Dkt. No. 33). Despite warnings from the Magistrate Judge that the claim would be

dismissed for failure to prosecute, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants' motion for

summary judgment. The last filing by the Plaintiff occurred on October 9, 2012, (Dkt. No. 15),

indicating either dilatory action or abandonment of the claim. Finally, given the Magistrate

Judge's prior explicit warning that dismissal would be recommended if the Plaintiff failed to

respond, dismissal is the only appropriate sanction. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge was

2

9:12-cv-02153-RMG Date Filed 07/30/13 Entry Number 36 Page 3 of 3

correct in recommending that the Court find Plaintiff has satisfied all the criteria for dismissal set

forth in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919,920 (4th Cir. 1982). CDkt. No. 33 at 2).

Conclusion

After careful review of the record, the Magistrate Judge's R&R, and the applicable law,

this Court therefore adopts the R&R as the order of this Court. Accordingly, the Court

DISMISSES this action with prejudice for lack of prosecution and DENIES as moot Defendants'

pending motion for summary judgment, CDkt. No. 25).

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

July :sa, 2013
Charleston, South Carolina

The Honorable Rich
United States District Court Judge

k Gergel

3