Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomas v. United States

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

April 20, 2018

Bruce A. Thomas, Plaintiff,
v.
United States of America; LR Thomas, Warden FCI Edgefield; and Warden FCI Terre Haute, Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          MARY GORDON BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         The Plaintiff filed the instant action on or about November 14, 2016. (See generally Dkt. No. 1.) On January 9, 2018, Defendants filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 52.) By order of this court filed January 10, 2018, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Plaintiff was advised of the dismissal and summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. (Dkt. No. 53.) Despite this explanation and an extension of time, the Plaintiff elected not to respond to the Renewed Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment.

         As the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court filed an Order on March 23, 2018, giving Plaintiff through April 12, 2018, to file his response to the Renewed Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 59.)[1] The Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond, this action would be dismissed. Plaintiff did not respond.

         Based on the foregoing, it appears the Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action. Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with 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 and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir.1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).

         IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.[2]

         The parties' attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.

         Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

         The 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 committee's note).

         Specific 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 objections to:

Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402

         Failure 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.