United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
TIMOTHY M. CAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Curtis, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, brought this civil action to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), this
matter was referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial
proceedings. Before the court is the magistrate judge's
Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending that the court dismiss the case for lack of
prosecution. (ECF No. 62). Plaintiff was advised of his right
to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 62-1). Plaintiff
filed no objections, and the time to do so has now run.
Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to
make a final determination in this matter remains with this
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not
required to provide an 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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 Advisory
Plaintiff filed his original Complaint on February 21, 2019.
(ECF No. 1). On February 28, 2019, the magistrate judge
issued an Order directing Plaintiff to bring the case into
proper form and advising Plaintiff of his duty to keep the
court informed as to his current address. (ECF No. 5).
Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on April 1, 2019. (ECF
No. 16). On April 5, 2019, the court authorized service of
process on Defendant. (ECF No. 18). Defendant answered the
Complaint. (ECF No. 35). On July 12, 2019, Defendant filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 46).
15, 2019, the magistrate judge issued an Order pursuant to
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975),
advising Plaintiff of the potential consequences he could
face if he failed to adequately respond to Defendant's
motion. (ECF No. 48). Despite this admonition, Plaintiff did
not respond to the motion. On August 29, 2019, the magistrate
judge issued an order extending the time for Plaintiff to
respond to the motion until September 18, 2019, and warning
Plaintiff that his failure to respond by the new deadline
could result in a dismissal of the case, with prejudice, for
failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders. (ECF
No. 58). On September 12, 2019, the August 29th order was
returned to the court as undeliverable, marked “Return
to Sender/Not Deliverable as Addressed/Unable to
Forward.” (ECF No. 61). To this date, Plaintiff has
neither advised the court of any changes to his address, nor
responded to Defendant's summary judgment motion.
September 25, 2019, the magistrate judge filed the Report,
and a copy of it was placed in the mail to Plaintiff. (ECF
Nos. 62, 63). However, the Report was returned as
"undeliverable" on October 7, 2019. (ECF No. 64).
Based on his failure to comply with the Rules of Civil
Procedure and the orders of the court, it appears
Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action.
careful and thorough review of the record under the
appropriate standards, as set forth above, the court finds
that Plaintiff's case is subject to dismissal for failure
to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and
for failure to comply with court orders. Accordingly, the
court adopts the Report (ECF No. 62), and incorporates it
herein. Therefore, this case is DISMISSED with
prejudice. Furthermore, Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 46) is DENIED as
moot. The clerk of court shall provide a filed copy
of this order to Plaintiff at his last known address.
IS SO ORDERED.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
 On May 6, 2019, Defendant Pickens
County Detention Center was dismissed from this action with
prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF
 Plaintiff also labeled his Complaint
as a Bivens claim against federal officials. (ECF
No. 16 at 3). However, Plaintiff's claims for damages
allegedly arise from the conditions of his confinement in a
state detention center in South Carolina, and no federal
officials are named in the Complaint. This court has,