United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Jarode J.D.L. Witherspoon, # 247462, Plaintiff,
Nurse Jones, Full Name Unknown, SIA Wing on Kirkland Yard and M. Miley Mental Health, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Bristow Marchant United States Magistrate Judge
se Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to
Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. On November 7,
2017, the Defendant Miley filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim. As the Plaintiff is proceeding pro
se, a Roseboro Order was entered by the Court on
November 8, 2017, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a
dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an
adequate response. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if
he failed to file a properly supported response, the
Defendant's motion may be granted, thereby ending his
case. However, notwithstanding the specific warning and
instructions as set forth in the Court's
Roseboro order, the Plaintiff has failed to respond
to the motion, or to contact the Court in any way.
on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff meets
all of the criteria for dismissal under Chandler Leasing
Corp. . Lopez, 669 F.2d 919 (4th Cir.
1982). Accordingly, it is recommended that
this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See
Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Rule
Clerk shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff
at his last known address. If the Plaintiff notifies the
Court within the time set forth for filing objections to this
Report and Recommendation that he wishes to continue with
this case and provides a response to the motion for summary
judgment, the Clerk is directed to vacate this Report and
Recommendation and return this file to the undersigned for
further handling. If, however, no objections are
filed, the Clerk shall forward this Report and Recommendation
to the District Judge for disposition. Ballard v.
Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989),
cert, denied sub nom, Ballard v. Volunteers of
America, 493 U.S. 1084 (1990) [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 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 obj ection, 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).
The Defendant Jones has never been served
with process. See Court Docket No. 24. By Order
filed October 19, 2017, Plaintiff was advised that additional
information was needed to serve Defendant Jones. Plaintiff
thereafter submitted a filing on October 31, 2017, which may
or may not have been intended to respond to the Court's
Order. Exactly what the intention of Plaintiff s filing was,
however, is unclear, as it can best be characterized by what
some courts have described as "buzzwords" or
"legalistic gibberish". See, e.g.
See, e.g., Rochester v. McKie, No.
8:11-797, 2011 WL 2671228, at *1 (D.S.C. July 8, 2011)
(citing Yocum v. Summers, No. 91-3648, 1991 WL
171389, at *1 (N.D.I11. Aug. 30, 1991)). In any event, this
filing did not provide the service or location information
necessary to effectuate service on the Defendant
He is personally responsible for proceeding
in a dilatory fashion, the Defendant is suffering prejudice
due to having to expend time and resources on a case in which
the Plaintiff is unresponsive, and no sanctions other than
dismissal appear to exist as the Plaintiff is indigent (and
therefore not subject to monetary sanctions) and he has
otherwise failed to respond to ...