United States District Court, D. South Carolina
J. Todd Kincannon, Plaintiff,
John Doe, the Lexington County deputy sheriff; Richard Roe, the Lexington County EMS employee; and Frank Foe, the Lexington Medical Center employee, all with decision making authority as to the actionable conduct described herein; The State of South Carolina, a state sovereign liable for the actionable conduct described herein to the extent sovereign immunity is unasserted or unavailable; Lexington County, a body politic and corporate organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina, liable for the actionable conduct described herein under Monell
DSS, 436 U.S. 658 1978 and other federal and state laws; and Lexington Medical Center, a body corporate organized and existing under the law of the State of South Carolina, liable for the actionable conduct described herein under Monell
DSS, 436 U.S. 658 1978 and other federal and state laws, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
V. HODGES COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Kincannon (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this action alleging violations of his
civil rights. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the
undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for
relief and submit findings and recommendations to the
district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned
recommends that the district judge dismiss the complaint
without prejudice and without issuance and service of
April 9, 2018, the court ordered Plaintiff to complete the
service documents necessary to advance his case by April 30,
2018. [ECF No. 8]. Plaintiff was warned that the failure to
comply with the court's order may subject the case to
dismissal. Id. Plaintiff did not file a response.
The court issued a second order on May 7, 2018, again
directing Plaintiff to complete the service documents
necessary to advance his case by May 29, 2018. [ECF No. 12].
Plaintiff was again warned that failure to comply with the
court's order may subject the case to dismissal.
Id. Plaintiff did not file a response.
well established that a district court has authority to
dismiss a case for failure to prosecute. “The authority
of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has
generally been considered an ‘inherent power,'
governed not by rule or statute but by the control
necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so
as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases.” See Link v. Wabash RR. Co., 370 U.S.
626, 630-31 (1962). In addition to its inherent authority,
this court may also sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of
prosecution under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Id. at 630.
Based on Plaintiffs failure to respond to the court's
April 9 and May 7, 2018 orders, the undersigned concludes
Plaintiff does not intend to pursue the above-captioned
matter. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends this case be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41.
parties are directed to note the important information in the
attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report
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 901
Richland Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201
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,