United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
F. McDonald, United States Magistrate Judge.
petitioner, Alan Bruce Carruthers, proceeding pro
se, brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
seeking habeas corpus relief. This matter is before the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c),
(D.S.C.) for initial screening. For the reasons that follow,
the undersigned recommends that the district judge dismiss
the complaint without prejudice and without service of
petitioner is a state prisoner housed at Lee Correctional
Institution in Bishopville, South Carolina. By order dated
August 17, 2018, the petitioner was informed that his case
was not in proper form for service, and provided with
instructions for bringing the case into proper form (doc. 5).
The petitioner was directed to pay the five-dollar ($5)
filing fee for a habeas corpus action, or complete and return
the Form AO 240 (application to proceed in forma
pauperis). The petitioner was given twenty-one days from
the date the order was entered, plus three (3) days for
mailing to comply with the court's orders (Id.
at 1). The order warned the petitioner that failure to comply
with the order within the time permitted could subject this
case to dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to
comply with an order of this Court under Rule 41 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Id.). The
petitioner did not respond to the court's order.
September 10, 2018, the court entered a second proper form
order. In this order, the court advised the petitioner that
his case was not in proper form and once again provided
instructions for bringing it into proper form (doc. 8).
Specifically, the petitioner was directed to pay the
five-dollar ($5) filing fee for a habeas corpus action, or
complete and return the Form AO 240 (application to proceed
in forma pauperis). The petitioner was given an
additional twenty-one days from the date the order was
entered, plus three (3) days for mailing to comply with the
court's order (Id. at 1). The order warned the
petitioner that failure to comply with the order within the
time permitted could subject this case to dismissal.
(Id.). The petitioner has not responded to this
indicated above, the petitioner failed to comply with the
court's orders of August 17 and September 10, 2018, to
accomplish review and possible service of process under 28
U.S.C. § 1915. The court warned the petitioner that
failure to comply with its orders would subject his case to
dismissal for failure to prosecute. It is 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 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b) (Id. at 630).
a pro se litigant is not held to the same high
standards as an attorney, see Hughes v. Rowe, 449
U.S. 5, 10 n. 7 (1980) (per curiam); Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), pro se
litigants must meet certain standards, including
“respect for court orders without which effective
judicial administration would be impossible.”
Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir.1989).
Thus, pro se litigants are subject to the provisions
of Rule 41.
on the petitioner's failure to respond to the court's
orders, the undersigned concludes the petitioner does not
intend to pursue the above-captioned matter. Because the
petitioner failed to comply with orders of this court after
being warned that his failure to comply would result in
dismissal, it does not appear that any sanction less drastic
than dismissal is available. See Ballard, 882 F.2d
at 96 (finding the magistrate judge's explicit warning
that a recommendation of dismissal would result from the
petitioner's failure to obey his order gave the district
court little alternative to dismissal). As such, this case
should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ballard, 882 F.2d at
95 (finding that dismissal of a suit did not constitute abuse
of discretion where the petitioner “failed to respond
to a specific directive from the court”).
the undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to
comply with this court's orders pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b). The petitioner's
attention is directed to the important notice of the
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