United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
ORDER AND OPINION
RICHARD MARK GERGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R &
R") of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 31) recommending
the Court dismiss this action for failure to prosecute. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R & R
as the order of the Court and this action is dismissed.
Lori Willis filed this action against Defendant alleging
violations of the Americans with Disability Act, Family and
Medical Leave Act, and nonpayment of wages. On February 20,
2019, the Magistrate Judge issued an order compelling
Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's interrogatories and
document requests. (Dkt. No. 20.) Plaintiffs counsel
subsequently moved to be relieved as counsel as Plaintiff had
ceased responding to communications via both phone and email.
(Dkt. No. 21.) Plaintiffs counsel served the motion on
Plaintiff by mail and e-mail. (Id.) On March 1,
2019, the Magistrate Judge relieved Plaintiffs counsel, and
warned Plaintiff that failure to respond to the discovery
requests and the Court's order may lead to dismissal, but
provided the Plaintiff with an extension until March 15,
2019, to respond. (Dkt. No. 22.) Plaintiff has not responded
to the requests. (Dkt. No. 29.) The "court only"
docket further reflects that the Clerk attempted to call the
Plaintiff twice and left a voicemail, and that Plaintiffs
former counsel agreed to attempt to contact Plaintiff again.
Defendant therefore moves for dismissal for failure to
prosecute. (Dkt. No. 29.) Plaintiffs former counsel
thereafter informed the Court that she has been unable to
reach Plaintiff via email, text message or
mail. (Dkt. No. 30.)
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court
that has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a
final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court may
"accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court must make
a de novo determination of those portions of the R
& R Petitioner specifically object. Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2). Where Petitioner fails to file any specific
objections, "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
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (internal quotation omitted). "Moreover, in the
absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court
need not give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation." Wilson v. S C Dept of Corr.,
No. 9:14-CV-4365-RMG, 2015 WL 1124701, at *l (D.S.C. Mar. 12,
2015). See also Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200
(4th Cir. 1983)). Petitioner did not file objections in this
case, and the R & R is reviewed for clear error.
Magistrate Judge issued an order compelling discovery
responses. (Dkt. No. 20.) Further, the Magistrate Judge
explicitly warned Plaintiff that failure to respond may lead
to dismissal. (Dkt. No. 22.) The Plaintiff failed to respond
to either order. Petitioner's lack of response, failure
to comply with court orders, and the inability of the Court
or Defendant to contact Plaintiff indicates an intent not to
prosecute this case and the Complaint is therefore subject to
dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (district
courts may dismiss an action if a plaintiff fails to comply
with an order of the court); see also Ballard v.
Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (dismissal
appropriate when accompanied by a warning). Dismissal with
prejudice is appropriate based on the four-part test in
Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920
(4th Cir. 1982), as Plaintiff is personally responsible for
the delay and failure to respond, Defendant is suffering
prejudice, the failure to respond has continued now for more
than two months, and no sanctions other than dismissal exist
as Plaintiff has failed to respond to numerous mailings,
emails, text messages and calls. Therefore, the Court adopts
the R & R and dismisses the case with prejudice.
foregoing reasons, the R & R of the Magistrate Judge
(Dkt. No. 31) is ADOPTED as the order of the
Court, and the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
 Though Plaintiff has not updated her
address, Plaintiffs former counsel discovered via Westlaw
that Plaintiff may have a different (though similar) address
to the one provided. (Dkt. No. 30.) However, the address
stopped being current in September 2018. (Id.)
Regardless, counsel mailed a copy of the status report ...