Preview:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION Willie E. Cannon, ) Civil Action No.: 8:07-3984-CMC-BHH ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ) OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE South Carolina Department of ) Corrections; and Warden Broad River ) Correctional Institution, ) ) Respondents. ) The petitioner brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. On July 11, 2008, the respondents filed a motion for summary judgment. On July 15, 2008, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the petitioner was advised of the summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. Despite this explanation, the petitioner elected not to respond to the motion. As the petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court filed a second order on August 21, 2008, giving the petitioner through September 15, 2008, to file his response to the motion for summary judgment. The petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond, this action would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The petitioner elected not to respond. Based on the foregoing, it appears the petitioner no longer wishes to pursue this action. Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be 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).

s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States Magistrate Judge September 19, 2008 Greenville, South Carolina

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Court Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. 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 (4th Cir. 2005). Specific written objections must be filed within ten (10) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C.

Download 33477.pdf

South Carolina Law