United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Janice Barnwell, and C. Napoleon Brown Barnwell, Plaintiffs,
Bank of New York, The Trust Under Agreement Dated 12/1/01 EQCC Trust 2001-2, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GORDEN BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Barnwell and C. Napoleon Brown Barnwell
(“Plaintiffs”) are non-prisoner pro se
litigants. On October 6, 2017, they filed this civil action,
alleging that they have an ownership interest in a parcel of
real property and that the foreclosure action against that
real property amounted to a deprivation of due process
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (DE #1, Complaint).
Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se and have paid the full
filing fee. This Court issued a Proper Form Order and Special
Interrogatories on October 27, 2017. (DE#11). Despite being
furnished with blank forms and instructions, Plaintiffs have
failed to respond to the Order of October 27, 2017 or
otherwise bring this case into proper form, and the time for
doing so expired on or about November 17, 2017.
Order of October 27, 2017, Plaintiff was given twenty-one
(21) days, plus three (3) days for mail time, from that date
to bring this case into proper form, pursuant to General
Order, Case No. 3:07-mc-5015-JFA (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 2007),
In Re: Procedures in Civil Actions Filed by Non-Prisoner
Pro Se litigants. The Clerk of Court mailed a copy of
the Order of October 27, 2017 (DE# 11) and Special
Interrogatory (DE #12) to each Plaintiff at their address of
record: 2310 Parklake Drive, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30345.
The mail in which the Order and Special Interrogatory were
sent to Plaintiffs was not returned. The Order of October 27,
2017 warned Plaintiffs that their failure to provide the
necessary items within the timetable set forth in the Order
would subject this case to dismissal. The Plaintiffs have
failed to respond to this Court's Order of October 27,
2017 within the time permitted under the Order. The
Plaintiffs have also not submitted any answers to the
Court's Special Interrogatories, nor asked for an
extension of time. The Plaintiffs' lack of response to
the Order of October 27, 2017, indicates an intent to
discontinue prosecuting this case and subjects this case to
as Plaintiffs have failed to prosecute this case and failed
to comply with the Court's Order, the case should be
dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R.R Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 629-36 (1962).
IS SO RECOMMENDED.
attention is directed to the Important
Notice on the next page:
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
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, 7 ...