Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wiggins v. Marion County Detention Center

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

March 11, 2019

Derell Wiggins, Plaintiff,
v.
Marion County Detention Center, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          SHIVA V. HODGES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Derell Wiggins (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, 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 the district judge dismiss the complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

         On January 2, 2019, the court ordered Plaintiff to complete a standard complaint form and to complete the documents necessary to advance his case by January 23, 2019. [ECF No. 5]. Plaintiff was warned that the failure to comply with the court's order would subject the case to dismissal. Id. Plaintiff did not file a response. The court issued a second order on January 29, 2019, again directing Plaintiff to complete a standard complaint form and complete the service documents necessary to advance his case by February 19, 2019.

         [ECF No. 10]. Plaintiff was again warned that failure to comply with the court's order would subject the case to dismissal. Id.

         On February 13, 2019, Plaintiff notified the court of his new address and requested an extension to respond to the court's proper form order. [ECF No. 12]. The court granted Plaintiff until March 6, 2019, to file a response to the court's proper form order. [ECF No. 13]. The clerk of court was also instructed to mail to Plaintiff a copy of the court's January 29, 2019 order and accompanying materials to his new address.[1] Id. Plaintiff did not file a response to the court's order, but instead filed a letter on March 8, 2019, indicating he would like to exhaust his state remedies before proceeding with this action. [ECF No. 16]. Specifically, Plaintiff wrote:

Please be advised that I have been ordered to bring the case in proper form by March 6, 2019. Since the case is not in proper form I would like to follow the proper procedure and exhaust all state remedies before proceeding. Furthermore, please be advised I wasn't aware this was a federal court and apol[gize] if I haven't followed procedure.

Id. Based on Plaintiff's request, the undersigned recommends the court dismiss this action without prejudice.

         Independently, 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 Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Id. at 630. Based on Plaintiffs failure to bring this case into proper form, the undersigned recommends this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41.

         IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

         The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.

         Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

         The 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).

         Specific 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.