Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
David Jenkins, Jr.,                                                                                 )                                                                         Civil Action No.: 0:12-644-MGL
)
Plaintiff,                                                                                          )
)
v.                                                                                                  )                                                                         O R D E R
)
Mrs. Darlene Drew; Mr. Ronald Apollo,                                                               )
)
Defendants.                                                                                         )
)
)
)
Plaintiff David Jenkins, Jr., (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, is a federal prisoner who
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 5, 2012, alleging violations of his
constitutional  rights.                                                                             (ECF  No.  1.)  Plaintiff  is  incarcerated  at  FCI  Bennettsville  in
Bennettsville, South Carolina. This matter is now before the court upon the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation filed on September 28, 2012, recommending this
case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the
grounds that Plaintiff failed to prosecute the case.  (ECF No. 37.)  More specifically, Plaintiff
has failed to comply with this Court’s Orders of August  1,  2012,  (ECF No.  30) and
September 11, 2012, (ECF No. 34) directing Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment filed on July 31, 2012.   (ECF No. 29.)
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 Paige J. Gossett for pretrial handling.   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, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976).
The  court  may  accept,  reject,  or  modify,  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  Report  and




Recommendation or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).  The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation.
(ECF No. 37 at 3.)   However, he has not done so and, after an extension of time granted
to the Plaintiff, objections were due on November 19, 2012.  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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and this
action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
December 7, 2012

Download 25092.pdf

South Carolina Law