United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States
March 9, 2016, Lavonne Monique Hanna
(“Plaintiff”) filed this action pursuant to Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ECF No. 1. In addition,
Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, ECF No. 2, which
was granted on March 18, 2016, by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D.
West, ECF No. 10. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the case was
referred to the Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 19. On July 19,
2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. ECF No. 30. On July 20, 2016,
the Magistrate Judge issued an order pursuant to Roseboro
v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), explaining
the importance of Defendants' motion and providing
Plaintiff with thirty-four days to file an adequate response
in opposition to the motion. ECF Nos. 33-34. However, despite
numerous extensions provided by the Magistrate Judge,
Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants' motion.
See, e.g., ECF Nos. 41, 44. Thus, the Magistrate
Judge issued an order allowing Plaintiff until December 14,
2016, to advise in writing whether she wished to continue
with her case and file a response to Defendants' motion.
ECF No. 44. In addition, the Magistrate Judge noted that
Plaintiff had been given twenty-one (21) weeks to file a
response to Defendants' motion and advised Plaintiff that
no further extensions would be provided. Id.
Furthermore, Plaintiff was advised that if she failed to
respond, the Magistrate Judge would recommend her complaint
be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Id. (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Davis v.
Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978)).
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a
thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and
opines that this Court should dismiss Plaintiff's case.
ECF No. 47. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant
facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court
incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
The parties were advised of their right to object to the
Report, which was entered on the docket on December 16, 2016.
ECF Nos. 47-48. The Magistrate Judge gave the parties until
January 3, 2017, to file objections; however, no objections
were filed. Thus, this matter is ripe for the Court's
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report to which specific objection is made,
and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of
specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge,
this Court is not required to give an explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
courts possess the inherent authority . . . to dismiss a
lawsuit sua sponte for failure to prosecute.”
United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 236 (4th
Cir. 2007) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S.
626, 630-31 (1962)). “Inherent powers are
‘governed not by rule or statute but by the control
necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so
as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases.'” Id. Due to Plaintiffs failure to
respond to Defendants' motion or object to the Magistrate
Judge's orders for several months despite the warnings
she has received of the possible consequences, the Court
finds that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute her case and
this Court has the inherent power to dismiss same.
Link, 370 U.S. at 629-31; Custer v. Pan Am. Life
Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 410, 415-16 (4th Cir. 1993);
See D.S.C. Local Rule 7.06. Therefore, the Court
finds that Plaintiff has abandoned her suit and good cause
exists to dismiss this action.
carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this
case, as well as the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 47) and dismisses Plaintiffs case with
prejudice. Therefore, Defendants' motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 30) is deemed moot.
IS SO ORDERED.
 The Magistrate Judge's review is
made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes
only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
 The Court declines to dismiss this
action based upon Defendants' motion to dismiss and
rather deems it appropriate to do so on the premise that