-SVH Hart v. Foster et al
Filing
25
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19 of Magistrate Judge Robert S Carr. Because it now appears that the plaintiff wishes to continue to prosecute this action, the Court will not adopt the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is requested to return the file back to the Magistrate Judge for further handling. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 3/12/2009. (ssan, )
<![CDATA[
U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF SOUTH CAROLINA
A lbert W. Hart, formerly #170997, aka Albert W illia m s Hoyte aka Albert William Hoyte, P l a in tif f , vs. S h e rif f James Lee Foster, et al. D e f e n d a n ts . ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________________________
) C/A No. 2:08-3981-JFA-RSC ) ) ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) )
T h e pro se plaintiff, Albert W. Hart, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. T h e Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation w h e re in he suggests that this court should dismiss the action for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Report sets forth in detail the re le v a n t 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 R e c o m m e n d a tio n , which was entered on the docket on February 11, 2009.
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
On March 5, 2009, the plaintiff filed a letter requesting the status of his case. In his le tte r, he indicates that he mailed the Clerk a letter on January 29, 2009 that was received by th e Clerk via certified mail. The letter was addressed from "Albert Hoyte." As a result, the le tt e r was not properly filed in the case because the plaintiff's name on the complaint is " A l b e r t Hart." In any event, the court will treat the plaintiff's January 29, 2009 letter as c o n f irm a tio n of his desire to maintain this action. Because it now appears that the plaintiff wishes to continue to prosecute this action, the Court will not adopt the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is requested to return th is file back to the Magistrate Judge for further handling. IT IS SO ORDERED.
M a rc h 12, 2009 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina
J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
