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.

Dunlap v. Greenwood Detention Center

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

July 28, 2016

Quentico Jason Dunlap, Plaintiff,
v.
Greenwood Detention Center; Nurse Donna Miller; Nurse Mary Moss; Sgt. Mrs. Montgomery; Sgt. Mr. Montgomery; Lt. Butler, Defendants.

          Quentico Jason Dunlap, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

          Greenwood Detention Center, Defendant, represented by Carly H. Davis, Chapman Harter and Harter & Russell W. Harter, Jr., Chapman Harter and Harter.

          Nurse Donna Miller, Defendant, represented by Amy Harmon Geddes, Nexsen Pruet Jacobs and Pollard & James G. Long, III, Nexsen Pruet Jacobs and Pollard.

          Nurse Mary Moss, Defendant, represented by Amy Harmon Geddes, Nexsen Pruet Jacobs and Pollard & James G. Long, III, Nexsen Pruet Jacobs and Pollard.

          Sgt. Mr. Montgomery, Defendant, represented by Carly H. Davis, Chapman Harter and Harter & Russell W. Harter, Jr., Chapman Harter and Harter.

          Sgt. Mrs. Montgomery, Defendant, represented by Carly H. Davis, Chapman Harter and Harter & Russell W. Harter, Jr., Chapman Harter and Harter.

          Lt. Butler, Defendant, represented by Carly H. Davis, Chapman Harter and Harter & Russell W. Harter, Jr., Chapman Harter and Harter.

          ORDER

          JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.

         The pro se plaintiff, Quentico Jason Dunlap, is or was a detainee at the Greenwood County Detention Center in South Carolina. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, that being diabetes.

         The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action[1] has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should dismiss the action for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, however, the plaintiff did not respond to the motion.[2] The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.

         The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on June 27, 2016. However, the plaintiff did not file objections and the time within which to do so has now expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

         The Magistrate Judge has allowed the plaintiff ample time to respond to the court's orders and the plaintiff has failed to do so. Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to notify the court of his new address as it appears he has been released from custody or has been transferred to another facility.

         This court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the plaintiff meets all of the criteria for dismissal under Rule 41(b). See Ballard v. Carlson,882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. ...


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.