Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Barton v. Williams

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

May 13, 2014

Jerman O. Barton, Plaintiff,
v.
Jordan Williams, Lieutenant; James Johnson, Sergeant; Michael Marquardt, Sergeant; Wellington Williams, CPL; and Ringold, Ofc., Defendants.

ORDER

JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.

The pro se plaintiff, Jerman Barton, is an inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by placing him in a restraint chair.

The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action[1] has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should dismiss the action for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, however, the plaintiff did not respond to the motion.[2] The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.

The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on April 22, 2014. However, the plaintiff did not file objections and the time within which to do so has now expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

The Magistrate Judge has allowed the plaintiff time to respond to the court's various orders and the plaintiff has failed to do so. This court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the plaintiff meets all of the criteria for dismissal under Rule 41(b). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989), Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1978).

Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. The Clerk shall docket the defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 25) as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.