Woodruff v. Hambrick et al, No. 1:2011cv02967 - Document 55 (D.S.C. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING 50 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b). Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 7/12/2012. (abuc) Modified to edit text on 7/12/2012 (abuc).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Terrance Donell Woodruff, #278208, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Lt. Hambrick; State Department of ) Corrections, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) C/A NO. 1:11-2967-CMC-SVH OPINION and ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ( Report ). On June 21, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this matter be dismissed with prejudice due to Plaintiff s failure to prosecute this action. 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 has filed no objections and the time for doing so has expired. 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 reviews 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 a 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). After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the conclusion of the Report that this matter should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina July 12, 2012 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
