United States District Court, D. South Carolina
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge.
pro se Plaintiff brings that action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various claims against Defendants
and seeking money damages.
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a
Report and Recommendation wherein she suggests that this
Court should dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Defendant
Dr. Lutz pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for lack of prosecution. (ECF No. 30).
Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards
of law on this matter, and the Court incorporates such
without a recitation.
December 12, 2018, Defendant Dr. Lutz filed a Motion to
Dismiss. (ECF No. 21). On December 13, 2018, this Court
issued an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison,
528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying Plaintiff of the
dismissal procedure and possible consequences if Plaintiff
failed to adequately respond to the motion. (ECF No. 22).
Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion. On January 18,
2019, this Court issued an order extending the deadline for
Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's motion until February
8, 2019 (ECF No. 28); however, Plaintiff has still failed to
was also advised of his right to file objections to the
Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on
February 19, 2019. (ECF No. 30). However, Plaintiff did not
file objections and the time within which to do so has now
expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report
of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give
any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The
Court 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).
Magistrate Judge has allowed Plaintiff ample time to respond
to the Court's orders and Defendant's motion, yet
Plaintiff has failed to do so. On December 3, 2018, and again
on December 17, 2018, Plaintiff provided this Court with his
new permanent address. (ECF Nos. 20 & 25). A review of the
docket reveals that Plaintiff has not notified the Clerk of
any subsequent address change since then. This Court mailed
(1) the Roseboro Order, (2) the Order extending
Plaintiff's time to respond to Dr. Lutz's Motion to
Dismiss, and (3) the Report and Recommendation and notice
directing Plaintiff to file objections by March 5, 2019 to
the address Plaintiff provided to this Court. Further,
although recent mail containing an Order on Notice of Request
for Protection from Court Appearance and a subsequent motion
for summary judgment has been returned to this Court as
undeliverable (ECF Nos. 37 & 41), none of the mail
returned as undeliverable contained this Court's orders
relating to Defendant Dr. Lutz's Motion to
carefully reviewing the applicable laws and the record in
this case, this Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation and finds that that the Report
fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the
correct principles of law. This Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Dr.
Lutz meet all of the criteria for dismissal under Rule 41(b).
See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989);
Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1978).
Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Dr. Lutz are
dismissed with prejudice for lack of
prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b).
 The Magistrate Judge's review is
made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no
presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the court. Mathews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with
making a de novo determination of those portions of
the Report to which specific objection is made and the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the
matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C.
 On December 3, 2018, and again on
December 17, 2018, Plaintiff provided this Court with the