United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Baker, Petitioner, Pro Se.
Facility Director Alston Wilkes Society, Respondent,
represented by Barbara Murcier Bowens, U.S. Attorneys Office.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
GORDON BAKER, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner brought this action seeking relief pursuant to
Title 28, United States Code, Section 2241. On March 17,
2016, the undersigned issued an Order providing, inter
You are ordered to always keep the Clerk of Court advised in
writing (Post Office Box 835, Charleston, South Carolina
29402) if your address changes for any reason, so as to
assure that orders or other matters that specify deadlines
for you to meet will be received by you. If as a result of
your failure to comply with this Order, you fail to meet a
deadline set by this Court, your case may be dismissed for
violating this Order. Therefore, if you have a change of
address before this case is ended, you must comply with this
Order by immediately advising the Clerk of Court in writing
of such change of address and providing the Court with the
docket number of all pending cases you have filed with this
Court. Your failure to do so will not be excused by the
(Dkt. No. 3 at 2 of 3.)
April 14, 2016, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Dkt. No. 12.) By Order of this Court filed April
14, 2016, 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
she failed to respond adequately. (Dkt. No. 13.) Despite the
explanation in the Roseboro Order, the Petitioner
did not respond.
Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the Court filed an
Order on June 2, 2016, giving the Petitioner through June 22,
2016, to file her response to the Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Dkt. No. 19.) The Petitioner was specifically
advised that if she failed to respond, this action would be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The
Petitioner did not respond.
it appears that Petitioner failed to comply with the
Court's Order dated March 17, 2016, as recent items
mailed by the Clerk to Petitioner's address of record
have been returned as undeliverable. ( See Dkt. No.
17; Dkt. No. 18; Dkt. No. 21.) Petitioner failed to provide
the Clerk of Court with a proper address.
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
parties' attention is directed to the important notice on
the next page.
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.'" Dia ...