United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRISTOW MARCHANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
action has been filed by the Plaintiff, pro se, alleging
violations of his constitutional rights by the named
Order dated May 10, 2019, Plaintiff was given an opportunity
to provide the necessary information and paperwork to bring
the case into proper form for evaluation and possible service
of process, and to possibly amend his pleading to correct
numerous deficiencies noted therein. See also, e.g.
Brockington v. South Carolina Dept. of Social
Service. No. 17-1028, 2017 WL 1531633 (4th
Cir. April 28, 2017) [Noting that pro se Plaintiff should be
provided an opportunity to amend his complaint to cure
defects prior to a dismissal]: Evans v. Richardson,
No. 17-1144, 2017 WL 2294447 (4th Cir. May 25,
2017) [same]; Brevan v. All Medical Staff. No.
17-6186, 2017 WL 2365232 (4th Cir. May 31, 2017)
[same]. Plaintiff was specifically warned that failure to
provide the necessary information or amend his pleading
within the timetable set forth in the Order would subject the
case to dismissal.
time to bring this case into proper form has now lapsed, and
Plaintiff has failed to provide a response to the proper form
Order, or to contact the Court in any way. Based on the
foregoing, it is recommended that this action be
dismissed, without prejudice, in accordance
with Rule 41, Fed.R.Civ.P. See Link v. Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962): Ballard v. Carlson,
882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989), cert
denied sub nom, Ballard v. Volunteers of
America. 493 U.S. 1084 (1990) [holding that district
court's dismissal following an explicit and reasonable
warning was not an abuse of discretion].
Clerk shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff
at his last known address, as well as to the Turbeville
Correctional Institution, where the Department of Corrections
website indicates he is currently located. If the Plaintiff
satisfies the requirements for proceeding with this case as
is set forth in the proper form Order within the time set
forth for filing objections to this Report and
Recommendation, the Clerk is directed to vacate this Report
and Recommendation and return this file to the undersigned
for further handling. Brockington, 2017 WL 1531633.
However, if Plaintiff fails to do so, then at the end of the
time for filing objections, the Clerk shall forward this
Report and Recommendation to the District Judge for
disposition. Ballard v. Carlson. 882 F.2d at 95
[Magistrate Judge's prior explicit warning that a
recommendation of dismissal would result from plaintiff
failing to obey his order was proper grounds for the district
court to dismiss suit when plaintiff did not comply despite
parties are also referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.
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 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).
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
Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing
Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court Post
Office Box 835 Charleston, South Carolina 29402
to timely file specific written objections to this Report and
Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal
from a judgment of the District Court based upon such
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States
v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
While Plaintiff has apparently been
transferred, his original mailing has not been