United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Conrad L. Slocumb, # 197165, Plaintiff,
Dr. Beverly Wood, Dr. Marcia Garcia, Dr. NFN Parker, Dr. NFN Prest, Nurse NFN Mullins, Nurse Roseyln Boatwright, Nurse Roseanne Mack, Ladford Fate, Annie Rumler, Dr. NFN McRee, Warden Tim Riley, Wayne McCade, Michael McCall, SCDC Driector NFN Stirling, Sgt. NFN Watson, Sgt. NFN Gathers, A. W. NFN Thompson, Officer Spigner, Major Vaghn Jackson, NFN Marshal, John Doe, Dr. T. White, and Nurse NFN Higgins, 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 March 7, 2018,
the Defendant White filed a motion for summary judgment, and
on March 10, 2018 the Defendants Boatwright, Fate, Garcia,
Gathers, Higgins, Jackson, Marshal, McCade, McCall, McRee,
Mullins, Riley, Rumler, Spigner, Stirling, Thompson, Watson,
and Wood filed a motion for summary judgment. As the Plaintiff
is proceeding pro se, Roseboro Orders were entered by the
Court on March 9, 2018 and March 12, 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 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 41(b),
Fed.R.Civ.P. The 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 motions 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.'”
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 Defendants Parker, Prest and Mack
have never been served with process. See Orders (Court Docket
Nos. 29 and 40).
It is noted that Plaintiff is also a
frequent filer of litigation in this Court and is therefore
familiar with court procedures and filing requirements.
Aloe Creme Laboratories, Inc. v. Francine Co., 425
F.2d 1295, 1296 (5th Cir. 1970)[a federal court may take
judicial notice of the contents of its own records].
 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 ...