Stevenson v. Darlington County Detention Center et al - Document 27
ORDER adopting 24 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this courts orders Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 3/20/12.(hhil, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Antwaun T. Stevenson,
Darlington County Detention Center,
and Director Stanley, c/o the
C.A. No. 2:11-879-TMC
This matter is before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(Dkt. # 24). Plaintiff, Antwaun T. Stevenson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, filed on February 23, 2012, recommends that the action be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with this court’s orders. (Dkt. # 24).
The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this
matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation herein without a
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no
presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de
novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific
objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this
court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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.” Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report
and Recommendation results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the
District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727
F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
The Magistrate Judge originally filed a Report on April 25, 2011, recommending that the
Complaint in this case be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process. (Dkt. # 9). Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report. (Dkt. # 11). On October
26, 2011, the court declined to adopt the Report and interpreted Plaintiff’s Objections as a
Motion to Amend his Pleadings. Plaintiff was granted twenty (20) days to file an Amended
Complaint, and warned that failure to do so would result in the case being dismissed pursuant to
Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., for failure to comply with the court orders. Plaintiff has failed to
file an Amended Complaint.
Furthermore, on April 25, 2011, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff that he was to
advise the court, in writing, of any change of address and that failure to do so would not be
excused by the court. (Dkt. # 7). Mail sent to Plaintiff at his last known address has been
returned to the Court marked as “No Longer Here.” (Dkt. # 18).
On February 23, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed the instant Report recommending that
this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this
court’s orders. Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (Dkt. # 24 at 3).
However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Based on the
foregoing, it appears the Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action.
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for
failure to comply with this court’s orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th
Cir.1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
March 20, 2012
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.