Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Baker v. Facility Director, Alston Wilkes Society

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

July 1, 2016

Ronda Baker, Petitioner,
v.
Facility Director, Alston Wilkes Society, Respondent.

          Ronda Baker, Petitioner, Pro Se.

          Facility Director Alston Wilkes Society, Respondent, represented by Barbara Murcier Bowens, U.S. Attorneys Office.

          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 2241. On March 17, 2016, the undersigned issued an Order providing, inter alia,

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 Court.

(Dkt. No. 3 at 2 of 3.)

         On 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.

         As the 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.

         Furthermore, 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.

         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.

         The parties' attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.

         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.'" Dia ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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