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, alleging
violations of his constitutional rights by the named
Order dated April 18, 2018, Plaintiff was given an
opportunity to provide the necessary information and
paperwork to bring the case into proper form for evaluation
and possible service of process. See also, e.g. Brockington
v. South Carolina Dept. of Social Service, No. 17-1028, 2017
WL 1531633 (4th Cir. April 28, 2017) [Noting that
pro se Plaintiff should be provided an opportunity to amend
his complaint to cure defects prior to a dismissal]; Evans v.
Richardson, No. 17-1144, 2017 WL 2294447 (4th Cir.
May 25, 2017) [same]; Breyan v. All Medical Staff, No.
17-6186, 2017 WL 2365232 (4th Cir. May 31, 2017)
[same]. Plaintiff was warned that failure to provide the
necessary information within the timetable set forth in the
Order would subject the case to dismissal. However, the time
to bring this case into proper form has now lapsed, and
Plaintiff has failed to provide a response to the proper form
Order, or to contact the Court in any way.
on the foregoing, it is recommended that this action be
dismissed, without prejudice, in accordance with Rule 41,
Fed.R.Civ.P. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626
(1962); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96
(4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied sub nom, Ballard v.
Volunteers of America, 493 U.S. 1084 (1990) [holding that
district court's dismissal following an explicit and
reasonable warning was not an abuse of discretion]. The Clerk
shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff at his
last known address. If the Plaintiff satisfies the
requirements for proceeding with this case as is set forth in
the proper form Order within the time set forth for filing
objections to this Report and Recommendation, the Clerk is
directed to vacate this Report and Recommendation and return
this file to the undersigned for further handling.
Brockington, 2017 WL 1531633. However, if Plaintiff fails to
do so, then at the end of the time for filing objections, the
Clerk shall forward this Report and Recommendation to the
District Judge for disposition. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d
at 95 [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
parties are also 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).
Plaintiff's initial Order was
returned as undeliverable. A second Order was mailed to an
updated address, but no response to that Order was ever
After a litigant has received one
explicit warning as to the consequences of failing to timely
comply with an order of a Magistrate Judge, and has failed to
respond to that order, the district court may, under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), dismiss the complaint based upon the
litigant's failure to comply with that court order. See
Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33, 35-36 (4th Cir.1990); see also
Ballard, 882 F.2d at 95-96 [holding that district ...