Thomas v. United States of America et al, No. 2:2016cv03693 - Document 66 (D.S.C. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION adopting 62 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. The Court DISMISSES the complaint. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 5/14/2018.(ssam, )

Download PDF
Thomas v. United States of America et al Doc. 66 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Bruce A. Thomas, Plaintiff, V. United States of America, et al., Defendants. r-..:, c:::> co :II: > Civil Action No. 2:16-3693-RMG. -< ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) + This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, recommending this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The present action was filed on November 14, 2016. An amended complaint was filed on October 16, 2017. Plaintiff alleges he was placed in a Special Housing Unit for an unreasonably long period, causing medical conditions from the lack of space for movement. Defendants moved to dismiss, or alternatively for summary judgment, on January 9, 2018, asserting various jurisdictional defenses and that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against former FCI Edgefield warden Linda Thomas or former FCI Terre Haute warden John Oliver. (Dtk. No. 52.) As of May 14, 2018, Plaintiff has not responded, despite a Roseboro order (Dkt. No. 53), a 30-day extension of time for a response (Dkt. No. 57), a subsequent further extension with a warning that failure to respond could lead to dismissal (Dkt. No. 59), and a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal (Dkt. No. 62). Some of the Court's mailings to Plaintiffs address of record have been returned as undeliverable. (See Dkt. Nos. 61, 64.) It is Plaintiffs responsibility to keep his address information current so he may receive communications from the Court. Nonetheless, the Court used Bureau of Prisons public records to determine that Plaintiff moved from FCI Butner to the -1Dockets.Justia.com St. Louis Residential Reentry Office (with a projected release date of July 14, 2018) and mailed the order of March 23, 2018, warning that failure to respond to a motion to dismiss could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute (Dkt. No. 59) and the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 62) to his current location. Those mailings have not been returned as undeliverable, yet Plaintiff has failed to respond. Plaintiff also has not responded to an address update form mailed to his present location by the Clerk of Court on March 23, 2018. (Dkt. No. 60.) The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 62) as the Order of the Court and DISMISSES the complaint. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court Judge i!{_, 2018 May Charleston, South Carolina -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.