United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr. United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court because of the failure of
Plaintiff Dennis Jacobs (“Plaintiff”) to comply
with this Court's Order of June 26, 2018. (ECF No. 54).
review of the record indicates that Plaintiff, proceeding
pro se, brought this civil rights action seeking
relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 12,
2017. (ECF No. 1.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1)(B)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) DSC, the case was
assigned to Magistrate Judge Paige G. Gossett for pretrial
handling. On January 25, 2018, the defendants filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 29.) On January 24, 2018, the
Magistrate Judge issued an order pursuant to Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising
Plaintiff of the dismissal and summary judgment procedures
and the possible consequences if he failed to respond
adequately. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff failed to timely respond
to the motion for summary judgment as directed by the order.
Thus, the Magistrate Judge entered a second order on March 5,
2018, advising Plaintiff that it appeared to the Court that
he was not opposing the motion and wished to abandon this
action, and giving the plaintiff an additional fourteen (14)
days in which to file his response to the defendants'
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff was
specifically warned that if he failed to respond to the
motion, the action would be recommended for dismissal with
prejudicial for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 34 at 2.)
the Court never received a return of the orders to the Clerk
of Court as undeliverable mail or notification from Plaintiff
of an address change, in an abundance of caution the
Magistrate Judge ordered that Defendants re-serve their
motion at a new address as indicated on a previous filing.
(ECF No. 40.) The Magistrate Judge also entered another
Roseboro order on March 20, 2018, advising Plaintiff
of the dismissal and summary judgment procedures and the
possible consequences if Plaintiff failed to respond to the
pending motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff
never responded to the Motion for Summary Judgment or the
Court's orders. Thus, on April 26, 2018, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation to this Court,
outlining its previous orders and warnings to Plaintiff, and
recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice for
lack of prosecution, in accordance with Chandler Leasing
Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919 (4th Cir. 1982) and
Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989)
(stating that magistrate judge's prior explicit warning
that a recommendation of dismissal would result from the
plaintiff failing to obey his order was proper grounds for
the district court to dismiss the suit when the plaintiff did
not comply despite the warning). (ECF No. 49.)
14, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation indicating that he would like to proceed with
his lawsuit but indicating that he did receive the Motion for
Summary Judgment on March 5, 2018. (ECF No. 51.)
Plaintiff's objection however, did not respond to the
Motion for Summary Judgment or the arguments raised by
Defendants therein. Liberally construing Plaintiff's
objection as a motion for extension of time to respond to the
Motion for Summary Judgment, on June 26, 2018, the
undersigned granted Plaintiff an additional fourteen (14)
days to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No.
54.) At that time, the Court warned Plaintiff that he had
been afforded substantial time an opportunity to respond to
the Motion for Summary Judgment, and that this matter might
be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure by this United States District Judge. A
response to the Motion for Summary Judgment was due by July
13, 2018. However, no response has been filed to date.
lack of response to the Order indicates an intent to not
continue prosecuting this case and subjects this case to
dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)(district courts
may dismiss an action if a Petitioner fails to comply with
“any order of the court.”); see also Ballard
v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989)(dismissal
with prejudice appropriate where warning given); Chandler
Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir.
1982)(court may dismiss sua sponte). 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 R.R.
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.
Plaintiff is personally responsible for the lack of diligence
in prosecuting this matter and his failure to comply with the
Court's orders and warnings. At the same time, Defendants
have been prejudiced by the dilatory conduct of Plaintiff,
and no less drastic sanctions appear to exist. Thus, this
Court finds that all of the factors set forth in Chandler
Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir.
1982) are satisfied. Based on the plaintiff's failure to
respond to the court's June 26, order, the undersigned
concludes Plaintiff does not intend to pursue the
the Court declines to adopt the Report and Recommendation
because it construes the objections as a motion for an
extension of time in which to file a response to the Motion
for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, however, failed to respond
or comply with this Court's order, even after this Court
afforded Plaintiff additional time. Therefore, this Court
dismisses this case with prejudice for failure to
prosecute and failure to comply with this Court's orders
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The Report
and Recommendation and all pending motions are rendered moot.
The Clerk of Court shall close the file.