United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Bruce A. Thomas, Plaintiff,
United States of America; LR Thomas, Warden FCI Edgefield; and Warden FCI Terre Haute, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
GORDON BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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
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.
The Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to
respond, this action would be dismissed. Plaintiff did not
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).
parties' 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 ...