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.

Kelley v. Dennis

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

April 5, 2019

Albert Santanieyo Kelley, Plaintiff,
v.
Paul Dennis, Beverly Woods, Associate Warden Earley, James Stoney Drake, Defendants.

          ORDER

         This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”) filed on February 26, 2019. (ECF No. 63.) The Report addresses Plaintiff Albert Santanieyo Kelley's (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (ECF No. 1), which is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Defendants Paul Dennis, Beverly Woods, Associate Warden Earley, and James Stoney Drake's (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 58). (Id. at 2-3.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the court dismiss Plaintiff's action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because he has failed to prosecute his case. (Id.) For the reasons set forth herein, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 63) and incorporates it herein, DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) with prejudice, and DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 58).

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed his Complaint on April 10, 2018.[1] (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. (Id. at 4.) Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on January 3, 2019. (ECF No. 58.) Within their Motion, Defendants first contend that they are shielded from liability because of qualified immunity. (ECF No. 58-1 at 3-4.) Next, Defendants submit that Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendants “acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind” and “cannot sustain a claim of constitutional magnitude.” (Id. at 6-13.) Defendants conclude that “Plaintiff has been treated fairly and fully and in compliance with constitutional standards, prison policy, and the legal authority in this jurisdiction with regard to the incidents at issue.” (Id. at 13.)

         On January 4, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Roseboro order to Plaintiff, advising him of the procedures regarding summary judgment and the consequences of failing to respond.[2]There is no indication within the record that Plaintiff did not receive the Magistrate Judge's Roseboro order. Even after issuance of the Roseboro order, Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

         The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on February 26, 2019. (ECF No. 63.) Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge reasons that Plaintiff “has abandoned his claims against Defendants” because “he failed to respond to a motion asking that judgment be granted against him even after being warned that his failure to respond could result in dismissal . . . .” (Id. at 2.) Since Plaintiff “failed to prosecute his case, ” the Magistrate Judge recommends that the court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 2-3.) In addition Therefore, pursuant to Houston, Plaintiff's Complaint was filed on April 10, 2018. 487 U.S. at to providing the court with a recommendation, the Magistrate Judge advised both parties of their rights to file specific objections to the Report. (ECF No. 63-1 at 1.) Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants have objected to the Report.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge only makes a recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no presumptive weight. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Id. at 271. As such, the court is charged with making de novo determinations of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

         In the absence of specific objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, the court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in 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, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note). Thus, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         III. DISCUSSION

         In the absence of specific objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, the court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby, 718 F.2d at 199. Furthermore, a failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 63) accurately summarizes the law and correctly applies it to Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1). Specifically, the court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute his case because Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or communicated with the court since September 2018. (See ECF No. 44.) Since no specific objections were filed by either party, and the court discerns no clear error within the Report, the court adopts the Report herein. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315; Camby, 718 F.2d at 199.

         IV. CONCLUSION

         After a careful and thorough review of the Report and record in this case, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 63) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, the court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) with prejudice[3]and DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 58).

         IT ...


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.