United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Patrick Joseph Studley; N.S., as a minor by and through his father and guardian Patrick Joseph Studley parental natural guardian, Plaintiffs,
Jason Baldwin, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
J. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge.
plaintiff, Patrick Joseph Studley ("Plaintiff"),
a self-represented litigant, brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983. (ECF No. 1.). The Complaint has
been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915. This matter is
before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Â§ 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). Having reviewed the
Complaint in accordance with applicable law, the court
concludes that the Complaint should be summarily dismissed
without prejudice and without issuance and service of
Plaintiff initially filed this action, he moved to proceed
in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3.) However, he failed
to provide a Form USM-285 for the defendant so that the
United States Marshals Service could effect service of
process. Consequently, the court issued an order granting
Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis
and directing him to submit a Form USM-285 for the defendant.
(ECF No. 12.) However, Plaintiff did not receive the order,
as the order was returned to the court as undeliverable mail.
(ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff has not provided the court with a new
address, and the court's docket indicates no attempt by
Plaintiff to contact the court.
indicated above, Plaintiff has failed to provide an updated
address to the court and has failed to provide the necessary
information and paperwork to enable review and possible
service of process under 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915. "The
authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of
prosecution has generally been considered an inherent power,
' governed not by rule or statute but by the control
necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so
as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases." Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,
630-31 (1962). As well as inherent authority, a court may
sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Id. at
630. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit has held that a court should "ascertain (1) the
degree of personal responsibility of the plaintiff, (2) the
amount of prejudice caused the defendant, (3) the existence
of a drawn out history of deliberately proceeding in a
dilatory fashion, and (4) the existence of a sanction less
drastic than dismissal." Chandler Leasing Corp. v.
Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
instant action, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se;
therefore, he is solely responsible for his failure to
provide an updated address. Further, because Plaintiff has
failed to provide updated address information, the court
cannot provide him notice as to proceedings in his case.
Therefore, it does not appear that any sanction less drastic
than dismissal is available, and this case should be
dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d
93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (finding that dismissal of a suit did
not constitute abuse of discretion where the plaintiff
"failed to respond to a specific directive from the
foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Complaint be
dismissed without prejudice.
of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
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
written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of
the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28
U.S.C. Â§ 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:
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. Â§ 636(b)(1); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins,