Filed: Nov. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 14, 2014
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY M. CAIN, District Judge. Plaintiff, Robert Lee Moore, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 1 (ECF No. 48). Plaint
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY M. CAIN, District Judge. Plaintiff, Robert Lee Moore, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 1 (ECF No. 48). Plainti..
More
ORDER
TIMOTHY M. CAIN, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Robert Lee Moore, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.1 (ECF No. 48). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 48-1). However, Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
The 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 48) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
