United States District Court, D. South Carolina
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge.
pro se plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the
Pickens County Detention Center (“PCDC”) at the
time he filed these consolidated actions pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. His suit against Captain Nicks raises
complaints regarding the conditions of confinement including
overcrowded cells, chipping paint, mold and rust, water
quality, and laundry issues. The plaintiff seeks monetary
damages for his pain and suffering and mental anguish during
the time he was incarcerated at the PCDC. The plaintiff's
suit against Ms. Leopard alleges a violation of his First
Amendment rights and contends he was precluded from obtaining
religious materials and instructions from a Rabbi.
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on February 6,
2019. The Magistrate Judge issued an order pursuant to
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975)
notifying the plaintiff of the summary dismissal procedure
and possible consequences if the plaintiff failed to
adequately respond to the motions for summary judgment. The
plaintiff did not respond to the defendants' motion. On
April 3, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued another order
allowing the plaintiff additional time until April 25, 2019
to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Again, the
plaintiff failed to respond to the defendants' motion or
the Magistrate Judge's orders.
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a
Report and Recommendation wherein she suggests that this
court should dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack
of prosecution and failure to comply with court
orders. The Report sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the
court incorporates such without a recitation.
plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the
Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on
April 30, 2019 (ECF No. 64). On May 7, 2019, the plaintiff
filed a one sentence document (ECF No. 56) that simply
stated: “Michael Cowert here is responding to the
District Court in a Response.”
and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a
specific error in the Magistrate's proposed findings and
recommendations” are not specific objections and do not
warrant de novo review. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 48 (4th Cir. 1982). 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).
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.
these consolidated actions are dismissed with prejudice for
lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Clerk is
directed to terminate all pending motions in this case.
 Upon motion of the defendants, these
cases were consolidated by the Magistrate Judge after her
finding that the two cases involved common questions of law
and fact and because the consolidation would promote judicial
economy (ECF No. 35).
 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.
 The Magistrate Judge issued a proper
form order early in this case, advising the plaintiff that
that if he failed to bring his case into proper form, the
action may be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Ballard
v. Carlson,882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989); Davis v.
Williams,588 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed.R.Civ.P.