You're viewing Docket Item 50 from the case Hawkins v. Turbeville Correctional Institution et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




2:12-cv-03502-JFA Date Filed 10/04/13 Entry Number 50 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Robert Anthony Hawkins,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Warden Cothran; Investigator Carter; Officer
McDowell; Major Chavoila; and Warden
Knowlin,

Defendants.
______________________________________

ORDER

) C/A No. 2:12-3502-JFA-BHH
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

The pro se plaintiff, Robert Anthony Hawkins, brings this action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety

after he was assaulted by other inmates at the South Carolina Department of Corrections.

The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a Report and

1

Recommendation wherein he suggests that this court should summarily dismiss the action

with prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, but the plaintiff did not

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02. 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.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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 to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

2:12-cv-03502-JFA Date Filed 10/04/13 Entry Number 50 Page 2 of 3

respond to it. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this

2

matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.

The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and

Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on September 19, 2013. However, the

plaintiff did not file objections and the time within which to do so has now expired. In the

absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required

to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d

198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

The Magistrate Judge has allowed the plaintiff numerous extensions of time to

respond to the court’s various orders and the plaintiff has failed to do so. This court agrees

with the Magistrate Judge that the plaintiff meets all of the criteria for dismissal under

Chandler Leasing v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 929 (4th Cir. 1982).

Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 4, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2

An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying
plaintiff of the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond
to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not responded to the motion.

2

2:12-cv-03502-JFA Date Filed 10/04/13 Entry Number 50 Page 3 of 3

3