Lott v. Tross et al, No. 2:2016cv01586 - Document 52 (D.S.C. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION adopting 49 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; denying as moot 36 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 40 Motion for a Direct Order on Motion to Compel; denying as moot 27 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 3/23/2017.(ssam, )
Download PDF
Lott v. Tross et al Doc. 52 USOC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · HARlESTON.SC DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA?OI1 HAR 23 PH I: 51 CHARLESTON DIVISION Mark Tillman Lott, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Rozanna Tross Psy, Joshua Tucker, Cynathia Helff, Kimberly Poholchuk, Holly Scaturo, Shelia Lindsey, Versie Bellamy Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No 2: 16-cv-01586-RMG-MGB ORDER AND OPINION Mark Tillman Lott ("Plaintiff'), is currently in the custody of the Sexually Violent Predator Treatment Program ("SVPTP") of the South Carolina Department of Mental Health, having been civilly committed as a sexually violent predator under the South Carolina Sexually Violent Predator Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-10 through § 44-48-70. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action in May 2016, alleging that Defendants discriminated against him and violated his First Amendment rights. (Dkt. No.1.) This Court construes Plaintiffs action to be filed under 42 U.S.c. § 1983. This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R.") of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 49) to dismiss this action with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this Court's orders under 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) (per curiam). See Ballardv. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989). The Magistrate has also recommended that Plaintiffs pending motions be denied as moot. (Dkt. Nos. 27,40.) -1Dockets.Justia.com No objections to the R. & R. have been filed. While this Court will conduct a de novo review of any portion of the R. & R. to which a specific objection is made, it appears Congress did not intend for the district court to review the Magistrate's factual and legal conclusions absent objection by any party. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). This Court's review of the record indicates that the R. & R. accurately analyzes the facts of this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate's R. & R. (Dkt. No. 49) as the Order of this Court. Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. No.1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 27, 40) and Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 36) are DENIED AS MOOT. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Richard Mark Gergel United States District Court Judge 2017 Charleston, South Carolina -2-