Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Christopher Trent Glover,                                                                                )
)    C/A No. 2:11-2772-MBS
Plaintiff,                                                                                               )
)
vs.                                                                                                      )
                                                                                                         )   O R D E R
Adam Sizemore and Christopher Burton,                                                                    )
)
Defendants.                                                                                              )
____________________________________)
At the time of the underlying events, Plaintiff Christopher Trent Glover was detained at the
Anderson County Detention Center (ACDC).  Defendants Adam Sizemore and Christopher Burton
are employed as detention officers at ACDC.  Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the within complaint
on October 13, 2011, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights in various respects.
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks for pretrial handling.  On February 16,
2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.  On February 17, 2012, in accordance with
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4 tCir. 1975), Plaintiff was advised of the summary judgmenth
procedures and the possible consequences of failing to respond adequately.   Plaintiff filed no
response to the motion for summary judgment.  On March 27, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued an
order granting Plaintiff until April 16, 2012 to file his response to Defendant’s motion.   Plaintiff
specifically was advised that if he failed to respond, this action would be subject to dismissal.  See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).  Plaintiff filed no response to the Magistrate Judge’s March 27, 2012 order.
On April 20, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she
recommended that the within complaint be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.




Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.  The recommendation has
no presumptive weight.  The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976).  This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.  28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions.   Id.   This court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections have been filed.  Id.  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).
The court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge.  The court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by
reference.    The  within  action  is dismissed  with  prejudice  pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to
prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
May 17, 2012
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2

Download 23267.pdf

South Carolina Law