Clarkson v. Dennis

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Tijan Clarkson, ) C/A No.: 1:19-1970-HMH-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) REPORT AND ) RECOMMENDATION Sumter Lee Regional Detention ) Center, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Tijan Clarkson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this complaint against the Sumter Lee Regional Detention Center (“SLRDC”), alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the complaint without issuance and service of process.

Plaintiff filed his complaint on July 15, 2019, alleging an SLRDC officer sexually assaulted him. [ECF No. 1 at 1–2]. On July 19, 2019, the court notified Plaintiff of pleading deficiencies and granted him an opportunity to cure the deficiencies through an amended complaint. [ECF No. 5]. The court also ordered Plaintiff to complete a form complaint, pay the filing fee or complete an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and to complete necessary service documents. [ECF No. 4]. Both orders alerted Plaintiff his failure to comply by August 5, 2019, could subject his case to summary dismissal. [ECF No. 4 at 1; ECF No. 5 at 4—5]. Plaintiff has failed to respond to either order.

It is well established that a district court has authority to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute. “The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). In addition to its inherent authority, this court may also sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Jd. at 630. Based on Plaintiff's failure to respond to the court’s July 19, 2019 orders, the undersigned concludes Plaintiff does not intend to pursue the above-captioned matter. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Gwe. V: Mager August 8, 2019 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such 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.’” , 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to: Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court Richland Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); , 474 U.S. 140 (1985); , 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); , 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).