United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge.
Anthony Fair, Jr., a pro se plaintiff, filed this
civil action against the defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The case was referred to a magistrate
judge for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e)
was originally detained at Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center in
Richland County, South Carolina. (ECF No. 1). However,
Plaintiff eventually moved to a detention center in Appling,
Georgia, and he notified the court of this move. (ECF No.
76). Since then, all mail sent to Plaintiff has been returned
as “undeliverable.” (ECF Nos. 77, 84). On
November 14, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss this
case for failure to prosecute (ECF No. 87) because they have
been unable to complete discovery due to Plaintiff being
unreachable. The magistrate judge issued a Roseboro
Order (ECF No.88), but this, too, was returned to the court
as “undeliverable.” Before this court is the
magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 91)
on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, recommending that this
case be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to
comply with orders of the court pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b). See also Ballard v. Carlson,
882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989). The Report sets forth in
detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter,
and the court incorporates the magistrate judge's
recommendation here without a recitation.
recommendations set forth in the Report have no presumptive
weight, and this court remains responsible for making a final
determination in this matter. See Matthews 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 a specific objection is made, and the court
may accept, reject, modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation of the magistrate judge or recommit the matter
with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the
court need not conduct a de novo review when a party
makes only “general and conclusory objections that do
not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate's proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of a timely filed,
specific objection, the magistrate judge's conclusions
are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005).
was advised of his right to file objections to the Report.
(Dkt. No. 91 at 4). On November 28, 2017, the magistrate
judge filed the Report, and a copy of it was placed in the
mail to Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 92). However, the Report was
returned as "undeliverable" on December 6, 2017.
(Dkt. No. 93). Based on his failure to comply with the Rules
of Civil Procedure and the orders of the court, it appears
Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action.
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case,
the court adopts the Report and incorporates it here. (Dkt.
No. 91). Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 87) is GRANTED, and this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice for
lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this
court's orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The clerk of court shall provide a
filed copy of this order to Plaintiff at his last known
address. The Plaintiff's attention is directed to the
important notice on the following page.
IS SO ORDERED.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
 Plaintiff labeled his Complaint as a
Bivens claim against federal officials. (ECF No. 1-4
at 4). However, Plaintiff's claims for damages allegedly
arise from the conditions of his confinement in a state
detention center in South Carolina, and no federal officials
are named in the Complaint. This court has, therefore,
considered this claim as a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
 Specifically, as mentioned in detail
in the Report, the magistrate judge issued a “Proper
Form Order” on May 3, 2017, in which the court
instructed Plaintiff to submit any changes in his address ...