Filed: Sep. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2017
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON JR. , District Judge . The pro se petitioner is an inmate confined at the MacDougall Correctional Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). He brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging his 2011 felony DUI conviction in Charleston County to which he pled guilty. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should dismiss the action for lack
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON JR. , District Judge . The pro se petitioner is an inmate confined at the MacDougall Correctional Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). He brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging his 2011 felony DUI conviction in Charleston County to which he pled guilty. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should dismiss the action for lack o..
More
ORDER
JOSEPH F. ANDERSON JR., District Judge.
The pro se petitioner is an inmate confined at the MacDougall Correctional Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). He brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2011 felony DUI conviction in Charleston County to which he pled guilty.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should dismiss the action for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The respondent filed a motion for summary judgment, however, the petitioner did not respond to the motion.2 The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on August 15, 2017. However, the petitioner did not file objections and the time within which to do so has now expired. 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).
The Magistrate Judge has allowed the petitioner ample time to respond to the court's orders and the petitioner has failed to do so. This court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the petitioner meets all of the criteria for dismissal under Rule 41(b). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989), Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1978).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the court's orders.
Further, because the petitioner has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," a certificate of appealability is denied. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
