United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Merritte Dunbar, Petitioner, Pro Se.
of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent, represented
by Donald John Zelenka, S.C. Attorney General's Office.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRISTOW MARCHANT, Magistrate Judge.
se Petitioner brought this action seeking relief pursuant to
Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. On June 14, 2016,
the Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. As the
Petitioner is proceeding pro se, a Roseboro Order was entered
by the Court on June 15, 2016, advising Petitioner of the
importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to
file an adequate response. Petitioner was specifically
advised that if he failed to file a properly supported
response, the Respondent's motion may be granted, thereby
ending his case.
notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions as set
forth in the Court's Roseboro order, the Petitioner has
failed to respond to the motion, or to contact the Court in
any way. Therefore, Petitioner meets all of the criteria for
dismissal under Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669
F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, it is
recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for
lack of prosecution. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d
69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Rule 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Clerk shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Petitioner
at his last known address. If the Petitioner notifies the
Court within the time set forth for filing objections to this
Report and Recommendation that he wishes to continue with
this case and provides a response to the motion for summary
judgment, the Clerk is directed to vacate this Report and
Recommendation and return this file to the undersigned for
further handling. If, however, no objections are filed, the
Clerk shall forward this Report and Recommendation to the
District Judge for disposition. Ballard v. Carlson,
882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied sub nom,
Ballard v. Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084
(1990) [Magistrate Judge's prior explicit warning that a
recommendation of dismissal would result from plaintiff
failing to obey his order was proper grounds for the district
court to dismiss suit when plaintiff did not comply despite
parties are referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.
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
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,
766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
 He is personally responsible for
proceeding in a dilatory fashion, the Respondent is suffering
prejudice due to having to expend time and resources on a
case in which the Petitioner is unresponsive, and no
sanctions other than dismissal appear to exist as the
Petitioner is indigent (and therefore not subject to monetary
sanctions) and he has otherwise failed to respond to ...