United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRISTOW MARCHANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
action has been filed by the Petitioner, pro se, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner seeks certain habeas relief
relating to a prison disciplinary proceeding.
Order dated April 5, 2018, Petitioner was given an
opportunity to provide the necessary information and
paperwork to bring his case into proper form for evaluation
and possible service of process. Petitioner was also
specifically warned that failure to provide the necessary
information within the timetable set forth in the Order would
subject the case to dismissal. See also, e.g.
Brockington v. South Carolina Dept. of Social
Service, No. 17-1028, 2017 WL 1531633
(4thCir. 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]. However, the time to bring this
case into proper form has now lapsed, and Petitioner 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].
Clerk shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Petitioner
both as his address is shown in his original filing and as
shown on the BOP website. If the Petitioner 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 Petitioner 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 warning].
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, 7 ...