Filed: Jan. 13, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 13, 2020
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, JR. , District Judge . The pro se plaintiff, Ryane Wallace ("Plaintiff"), brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging violations of his civil and constitutional rights. On October 9, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff failed to respond after receiving a Roseboro Order on October 10, 2019. (ECF No. 19). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to the
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, JR. , District Judge . The pro se plaintiff, Ryane Wallace ("Plaintiff"), brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging violations of his civil and constitutional rights. On October 9, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff failed to respond after receiving a Roseboro Order on October 10, 2019. (ECF No. 19). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to the ..
More
ORDER
JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, JR., District Judge.
The pro se plaintiff, Ryane Wallace ("Plaintiff"), brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his civil and constitutional rights. On October 9, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff failed to respond after receiving a Roseboro Order on October 10, 2019. (ECF No. 19). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge for review.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation ("Report") and opines that this Court should dismiss this action for failure to prosecute. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on December 23, 2019. (ECF No. 22). The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by January 6, 2019. Id. However, Plaintiff failed to file any objections or otherwise respond. 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).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Therefore, the Report is incorporated herein by reference. (ECF No. 22). Consequently, Plaintiff's claims are dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
