Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Persons v. Joyner, 9:18-0401-TMC. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. South Carolina Number: infdco20180725e38 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2018
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY M. CAIN , District Judge . Petitioner David M. Persons, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. 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 with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 21). The parties were
More

ORDER

Petitioner David M. Persons, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 21). The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 21 at 2). However, neither party filed any objections to the Report, and the time to do 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. 21) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with 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). Further, Respondent's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is DENIED 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