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.

Burris v. Charleston County Detention Center

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

July 22, 2016

Shawn Justin Burris, Plaintiff,
v.
Charleston County Detention Center, Carolina Center for Occupational Health, Dr. Karen Huffman, and Dr. Theodolph Jacobs, Defendants.

          Shawn Justin Burris, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

          Charleston County Detention Center, Defendant, represented by Christopher Thomas Dorsel, Senn Legal & Sandra Jane Senn, Senn Legal.

          Carolina Center for Occupational Health, Defendant, represented by G. Wade Cooper, Buyck Sanders and Simmons & Hugh Willcox Buyck, Buyck Sanders and Simmons.

          Dr Karen Huffman, Defendant, represented by G. Wade Cooper, Buyck Sanders and Simmons & Hugh Willcox Buyck, Buyck Sanders and Simmons.

          Theodolph Jacobs, Defendant, represented by G. Wade Cooper, Buyck Sanders and Simmons & Hugh Willcox Buyck, Buyck Sanders and Simmons.

          ORDER

          TIMOTHY M. CAIN, District Judge.

         Plaintiff Shawn Justin Burris, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (ECF No. 54). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 54 at 3). However, Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.

         The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "in 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, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).

         The Fourth Circuit, in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, set forth several factors for determining whether Rule 41(b) dismissal is appropriate:

(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.

669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982) (citing Davis v. Williams,588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978)). However, the Fourth Circuit later noted that Chandler 's factors are not rigid, as "the propriety of a dismissal... depends on the particular circumstances of the case." Ballard v. Carlson,882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989). For instance, a magistrate judge's explicit warning that failure to obey court orders will result in dismissal of a ...


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.