United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division
Sedrick Banks; Monnie Breeland; Leon Capers; Ricardo Doe; Antonio Ferguson; Kevin Haynes; Michael Morris; Anthony Rice; and Randy B. Young, Plaintiffs,
Bradley J. O'Neal; Brad Lee O'Neal; Angela O'Neal Chappel; Coosaw Ag, LLC; Coosaw Land, LLC; and Coosaw Transport, Inc., Defendants.
ORDER AND OPINION
Sedrick Banks, Monnie Breeland, Leon Capers, Ricardo Doe,
Antonio Ferguson, Kevin Haynes, Michael Morris, Anthony Rice,
and Randy B. Young (collectively “Plaintiffs”)
filed a complaint against Defendants Bradley J. O'Neal,
Brad Lee O'Neal, Angela O'Neal Chappel, Coosaw Ag,
LLC, Coosaw Land, LLC, and Coosaw Transport, Inc.
(collectively “Defendants”), alleging Defendants
caused Plaintiffs harm because of intolerable working
conditions, racism, and retaliation. (ECF No. 1.)
matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
as to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for failure to
prosecute claims and failure to participate in discovery
pursuant to Rule 37 and Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (ECF No. 104 at 1.)
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate
Judge makes only a recommendation to this court, which has no
presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this court. See Mathews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged
with making a de novo determination of those portions of the
Report to which specific objections are made and the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter
with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
absence of a timely objection to the Magistrate Judge's
Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation
for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis,
718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Instead, “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 an
advisory committee note on Fed.R.Civ.P. 72). Furthermore,
failure to file specific written objections to the Report
results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from
the judgment of the District Court based upon such
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
6, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint containing the
following causes of action: (1) race discrimination and
disparate treatment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, (2)
retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, (3) outrage
and intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4)
violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872 (Migrant and
Seasonal Workers Protection Act) for misleading workers
regarding pay, failing to provide suitable hand washing
stations, and failing to provide suitable toilets to workers,
and (5) violation of S.C. Code § 41-10-10 to -110 (2015)
(South Carolina Wage Payment Act) for withholding or
diverting Plaintiffs' wages. (ECF No. 1.)
on November 24, 2015, Plaintiffs' attorneys filed a
Motion to Withdraw as Attorney because “[t]he
undersigned is unable to engage in any meaningful
negotiations, mediation or trial preparation on behalf of
[Plaintiffs] who will not cooperate, communicate or have no
remaining interest in the case.” (ECF No. 36 at 3.) On
January 13, 2016, the court granted the Motion. On June 2,
2016, the court entered the Fourth Amended Scheduling Order.
(ECF No. 72.)
numerous unsuccessful attempts to communicate with the newly
pro se Plaintiffs over the course of several months,
Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss against Plaintiffs on
September 1, 2016, alleging that “[t]he actions of
[Plaintiffs] have made it plain that [they do] not intend to
pursue the claims originally brought in this case, and
therefore, they should be dismissed with prejudice.”
(ECF Nos. 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.) The court
notified Plaintiffs of the date a response to Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss was due and the consequences for failing to
respond in a Roseboro Order,  which also went
unanswered. (ECF No. 100.) Consequently, the Magistrate Judge
entered a Report and Recommendation on October 24, 2016,
recommending that this court grant Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss and advising Plaintiffs of their right to file
specific written objections to the Report. (ECF No. 104.)
Plaintiffs filed no objections. As such, after a thorough
review, the court finds that the record and the Report
contain no clear error.
reasons above, the court ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
104), GRANTS Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss as to Plaintiff Sedrick Banks (ECF No. 91), Plaintiff
Monnie Breeland (ECF No. 92), Plaintiff Leon Capers (ECF No.
93), Plaintiff Ricardo Doe (ECF No. 94), Plaintiff Antonio
Ferguson (ECF No. 95), Plaintiff Kevin Haynes (ECF No. 96),
Plaintiff Michael Morris (ECF No. 97), Plaintiff Anthony Rice
(ECF No. 98), and Plaintiff Randy B. Young (ECF No. 99), and
DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Complaint (ECF No.
1) with prejudice.
IS SO ORDERED.