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.

Martinez-Castenada v. Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

June 1, 2015

Juanito Martinez-Castenada, # 349061, Petitioner,
v.
Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution, Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MARY GORDON BAKER, Magistrate Judge.

The Petitioner brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. On March 19, 2015, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 20; see also Dkt. No. 21.) By Order of this court filed March 19, 2015, 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. (Dkt. No. 22.) Despite the explanation in the Roseboro Order, the Petitioner did not respond.

As the Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court filed an Order on May 4, 2015, giving the Petitioner through May 26, 2015, to file his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 24.) The Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond, this action would be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Petitioner did not 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).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

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 Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n 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) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).


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.