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, pursuant to
Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. Plaintiff, who is
currently incarcerated with the South Carolina Department of
Corrections (SCDC), asserts that his constitutional rights
were violated by the Defendants arising out of an alleged
February 7, 2018, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, seeking dismissal of this case. As the Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, a Roseboro Order was entered by
the Court on February 8, 2018, 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
Defendants' 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). See also Coker v. International
Paper Co., No. 08-1865, 2010 WL 1072643, at *
2["[A] plaintiff can abandon claims by failing to
address them in response to a summary judgment
motion."]; Jones v. Danek Medical. Inc.. No.
96-3323, 1999 WL 1133272 at * 3 (D.S.C. Oct. 12,
l999)["The failure of a party to address an issue raised
in summary judgment may be considered a waiver or abandonment
of the relevant cause of action."]. 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 41(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.
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 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. Am, 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).
He is personally responsible for
proceeding in a dilatory fashion, the Defendants are
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 ...