Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Larry James Tyler,                                                                                )   Civil Action No.: 9:12-2597-MGL
)
Plaintiff,                                                                                        )
)
v.                                                                                                )   O R D E R
)
Mitch Stanley,                                                                                    )
)
Defendant.                                                                                        )
)
Plaintiff Larry James Tyler (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 10, 2012, alleging violations of his constitutional rights.
(ECF No. 1.)   Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Darlington Detention Center in Darlington,
South Carolina.   This matter is now before the court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation filed on March 25, 2013, 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. 32.)  More specifically, Plaintiff has failed to comply
with this court’s Orders of January 18, 2013 (ECF No. 20), February 26, 2013 (ECF No.
25),  and March 8, 2013 (ECF No. 29), directing Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment filed on January 17, 2013.   (ECF No. 19.)
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 Bristow Marchant 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. 32 at 3.)   However, he has not done so and objections were due on April 11,
2013.  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 for lack of prosecution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
May 7, 2013

Download 21763.pdf

South Carolina Law