Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Woodley v. Charleston Police Department, City of, 2:17-1467-RMG. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. South Carolina Number: infdco20180205711 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 24, 2018
Summary: ORDER AND OPINION RICHARD MARK GERGEL , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, recommending Plaintiffs claims be dismissed for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, alleges Officer Jory Bradshaw used excessive force at a traffic stop on June 8, 2015. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Officer Bradshaw injured his right arm during a Terry frisk. On Jun
More

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, recommending Plaintiffs claims be dismissed for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, alleges Officer Jory Bradshaw used excessive force at a traffic stop on June 8, 2015. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Officer Bradshaw injured his right arm during a Terry frisk.

On June 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed the present § 1983 action against the City of Charleston Police Department and Officer Bradshaw. On July 18, 2017, the Court dismissed the Police Department as an improper non-person defendant for a § 1983. Officer Bradshaw answered the complaint and, on October 27, 2017, moved for summary judgment. The Court mailed a Roseboro order to Plaintiff explaining that if he failed to respond to Defendant's dispositive motion his complaint might be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 31.) Plaintiff did not respond to the motion for summary judgment. On December 4, 2017, the Court extended the time for a response to December 27, 2017 and again admonished Plaintiff that if he failed to respond, his action would be subject to dismissal. (Dkt. No. 33.) On January 4, 2018, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal with prejudice for lack of prosecution. (Dkt. No. 35.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation. Indeed, Plaintiff has filed nothing since June 2017.

The Court fully agrees with the analysis and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and therefore ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 35) as the Order of the Court and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this action.

AND 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