Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

RICHBERT v. WARDEN, RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 4:14-3213-MGL-TER. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. South Carolina Number: infdco20150202b25 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2015
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE MARY G. LEWIS, District Judge. This case was filed as a 28 U.S.C. 2254 action. Petitioner is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636 and Local Civ
More

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

MARY G. LEWIS, District Judge.

This case was filed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action. Petitioner is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on January 7, 2015, but Petitioner failed to file any objections. "[I]n 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Any pending motions are therefore DISMISSED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer