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,
Warden Cothran; Investigator Carter; Officer
McDowell; Major Chavoila; and Warden
) 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
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
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).
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
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
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.
2:12-cv-03502-JFA Date Filed 10/04/13 Entry Number 50 Page 3 of 3