United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRISTOW MARCHANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
action has been filed by the Petitioner, pro se, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner, an inmate at
FCI-Bennettsville, seeks certain habeas relief.
Order dated July 11, 2017, Petitioner 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. Petitioner was also
specifically warned that failure to provide the necessary
information within the timetable set forth in the Order would
subject his case to dismissal. See also, e.g.
Brockington v. South Carolina Dept. of Social
Service, No. 17-1028, 2017 WL 1531633
(4thCir. April 28, 2017) [Noting that pro se
Plaintiff should be provided an opportunity to amend his
complaint to cure defects prior to a dismissal]; Evans v.
Richardson, No. 17-1144, 2017 WL 2294447 (4,
h Cir. May 25, 2017) [same]; Brevan v. All Medical
Staff. No. 17-6186, 2017 WL 2365232 (4th Cir.
May 31, 2017) [same]. The time to bring this case into proper
form has now lapsed, and Petitioner 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.
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
Clerk shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Petitioner
at his last known address. If the Petitioner 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.
Brockington. 2017 WL 1531633. However, if Petitioner
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 warning]. 
parties are also referred to the Notice Page attached hapeto.
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.'"
Diamondv. Colonial Life & Ace. 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).
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