United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Bristow Marchant, United States Magistrate Judge
pro se Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief
pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. On
October 19, 2016, the Defendant McDonald filed a motion for
summary judgment, seeking dismissal of this case. As the
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, a Roseboro
Order was entered by the Court on October 20, 2016, advising
Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and of
the need for him to file an adequate response. Plaintiff was
specifically advised that if he failed to file a properly
supported response, the Defendant's motion may be
granted, thereby ending his case. Also on October 20, 2016,
the Defendants Urch, White and Wright filed their own motion
for summary judgment, following which a second
Roseboro Order was entered by the Court on October
notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions as set
forth in the Court's Roseboro orders, the
Plaintiff has failed to respond to either motion, or to
contact the Court in any way. As such, Plaintiff meets all of
the criteria for dismissal under Chandler Leasing Corp. .
Lopez, 669 F.2d 929 (4th Cir.
1982). Accordingly, it is recommended that this
action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Davis v.
Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Rule 41(b),
Clerk shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff
at his last known address. If the Plaintiff 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 motions 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 warning].
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 note).
written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of
the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 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
Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court Post
Office Box 835 Charleston, South Carolina 29402
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. § 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 Defendants are
suffering prejudice due to having to expend time and
resources on a case in which the Plaintiff is unresponsive,
and no sanctions other than dismissal appear to exist as the
Plaintiff is indigent (and therefore not subject to monetary
sanctions) and he has otherwise failed to respond to Court
filings despite Court orders requiring him to do so.
Lopez, 669 F.2d at 920.
 After a litigant has received one
explicit warning as to the consequences of failing to timely
comply with an order of a Magistrate Judge, and has failed to
respond to that order, the district court may, under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), dismiss the complaint based upon the
litigant's failure to comply with that court order.
See Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33, 35-36 (4th
Cir.1990); see also Ballard, 882 F.2d at 95-96
[holding that district ...