United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Bristow Marchant United States Magistrate Judge.
action has been filed by the Plaintiff, pro se.
Although Plaintiff's specific complaint is unclear, she
appears to be attempting to assert some type of claim dealing
with an underground storage tank.
Order dated February 13, 2017, Plaintiff was given an
opportunity to provide the necessary information and
paperwork to bring the case into proper form for evaluation
and possible service of process. Plaintiff was warned that
failure to provide the necessary information within the
timetable set forth in the Order would subject the case to
dismissal. However, the time to bring this case into proper
form has now lapsed, and Plaintiff has failed to provide a
response to the proper form Order, or indeed to contact the
Court in any way. Therefore, based on the foregoing, it is
recommended that this action be dismissed, without prejudice,
in accordance with Rule 41, Fed.R.Civ.P. See Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Ballard v.
Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989),
cert. denied sub nom, Ballard v. Volunteers of
America, 493 U.S. 1084 (1990) [holding that district
court's dismissal following an explicit and reasonable
warning was not an abuse of discretion].
Clerk shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff
at her last known address. If the Plaintiff satisfies the
requirements for proceeding with this case as is set forth in
the proper form Order within the time set forth for filing
objections to this Report and Recommendation, the Clerk is
directed to vacate this Report and Recommendation and return
this file to the undersigned for further handling. However,
if Plaintiff fails to do so, then at the end of the time for
filing objections, the Clerk shall forward this Report and
Recommendation to the District Judge for disposition.
Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d at 95
[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 also referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.
of Right to File Objections to Report and
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).
A previously issued Report and
Recommendation in this case was also adopted by the Court
after no response was received from the Plaintiff.
 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 ...