United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
OPINION AND ORDER
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the court on Plaintiff s pro se
complaint, filed in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights while
housed at Sumter Detention Center. ECF No. 1. In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02
(B)(2)(d), DSC, this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for pre-trial proceedings
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).
6, 2019, Defendants Dennis, Gailard, Kelley, Major, and
McGhaney (the “Detention Center Defendants”), and
Defendants Stephan, and Sterling (the “SCDC
Defendants”) filed motions for summary judgment. ECF
Nos. 36, 37. A Roseboro Order was mailed to
Plaintiff the same day, advising him of the importance of a
dispositive motion and the need to file an adequate response.
ECF No. 38. This mail was returned as undeliverable. ECF No.
40. The Magistrate Judge then entered an Order allowing him
through July 31, 2019 to respond to the motions for summary
judgment or his case would be subject to dismissal for
failure to prosecute. ECF No. 41. On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff
called the court and noted he would be sending an updated
address within a few days, and requested the court send any
order filed between March and July to the new address. ECF
No. 43. The change of address was received July 31, 2019, and
the Scheduling Order, Roseboro Order, and order
setting deadline were re-sent to the new address. ECF No. 44.
An Amended Roseboro Order was also entered, allowing
Plaintiff until August 26, 2019 to file a response to the
motions for summary judgment. ECF No. 45. Plaintiff then
filed a response to the SCDC Defendants' motion for
summary Judgment, as well as his own motion for summary
judgment. ECF Nos. 47, 49, 50. The court then issued a text
order, directing Defendants to file proof of service of their
motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff at Clarendon County
Jail, and allowed Plaintiff to file a supplemental response
brief by November 15, 2019. ECF No. 51. Defendants filed
their proofs of service (ECF Nos. 52, 53). However, the
court's order dated October 18, 2019 was returned to the
court as undeliverable. ECF No. 57. Plaintiff called the
court on October 24, 2019, stating he would send an updated
address to the court and requesting any order filed from July
to present be sent when he provides the updated address. ECF
No. 56. No. updated address was received.
December 6, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending Defendants' summary judgment motions be
granted. ECF No. 58. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff
of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to
the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do
so. Plaintiffs copy of the Report, sent to his last known
address, was returned to the court as
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. See Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate
Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the
matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the
Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection.
See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that
“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.”) (citation omitted).
reviewing the complaint, the motions, the applicable law, the
record, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, the court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted
and incorporated by reference.
motions for summary judgment are granted (ECF Nos. 36, 37),
and this matter is dismissed with prejudice
 Plaintiff has twice been advised of
his duty to keep the court informed of any address changes to
ensure orders and other matters containing deadlines will be
timely received. ECF Nos. 6, 45. However, he has failed to do
so, resulting in multiple delays and diminishing his ability
to fully pursue his case before this court.
 Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment
is dismissed as ...