Filed: Oct. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 13, 2015
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SHIVA V. HODGES , Magistrate Judge . Rashad Saleem Muhammad ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Before the court are motions to dismiss filed on September 21, 2015, by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Matthew J Modica ("Modica"), Jeffrey Myrick, Christopher Neville, Brian Robinson, United States of America, United States Attorneys' Office [ECF
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SHIVA V. HODGES , Magistrate Judge . Rashad Saleem Muhammad ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Before the court are motions to dismiss filed on September 21, 2015, by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Matthew J Modica ("Modica"), Jeffrey Myrick, Christopher Neville, Brian Robinson, United States of America, United States Attorneys' Office [ECF N..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge.
Rashad Saleem Muhammad ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court are motions to dismiss filed on September 21, 2015, by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Matthew J Modica ("Modica"), Jeffrey Myrick, Christopher Neville, Brian Robinson, United States of America, United States Attorneys' Office [ECF No. 34] and by Modica individually [ECF No. 35]. All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.). Because they are dispositive motions, this report and recommendation is entered for review by the district judge.
As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), on September 22, 2015, advising him of the importance of the motions to dismiss and of the need for him to file adequate responses. [ECF No. 36]. On October 7, 2015, the Roseboro order was returned to the Clerk of Court's office via the United States Postal Service as "undeliverable" and "unable to forward." [ECF No. 39]. On October 9, 2015, counsel for Modica filed a notice of returned mail [ECF No. 40], indicating his notice of appearance had been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff was previously directed by order of this court to keep the court apprised of any change in address:
You are ordered to always keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing (901 Richland Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201) if your address changes for any reason, so as to assure that orders or other matters that specify deadlines for you to meet will be received by you. If as a result of your failure to comply with this order, you fail to meet a deadline set by this court, your case may be dismissed for violating this order. Therefore, if you have a change of address before this case is ended, you must comply with this order by immediately advising the Clerk of Court in writing of such change of address and providing the court with the docket number of all pending cases you have filed with this court. Your failure to do so will not be excused by the court.
[ECF No. 7; see also ECF No. 10] (emphasis in original). Plaintiff has not notified the court of any change of address. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court's order, and as a result, neither the court nor defendants have any means of contacting him concerning his case.
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk is directed to send this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff at his last known address. If Plaintiff notifies the court within the time set for filing objections to this Report and Recommendation that he wishes to continue with this case and provides a current address, the Clerk is directed to vacate this Report and Recommendation and return this file to the undersigned for further handling. If, however, no objections are filed, the Clerk shall forward this Report and Recommendation to the district judge for disposition.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
