Barry Greeley, a/k/a Barry Octavis Greeley, #252483 v. Sheriff J. Koon,...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Barry Greeley, ) C/A No. 4:21-1468-TLW-TER a/k/a Barry Octavis Greeley, #252483, )

Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Report and Recommendation )

Sheriff J. Koon, Lexington County Detention Center, )

Defendant. ) _______________________________________________

This is an action filed by a pretrial detainee. This case is before the undersigned due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the undersigned’s order to complete a complaint form and name defendants if Plaintiff intended his letter to be an action and provide the filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis status. (ECF No. 5). The order was returned as undeliverable as the facility noted Plaintiff had been released and no forwarding address is indicated. Plaintiff has not updated his address with the court. The Court has not received a response from Plaintiff and the time for compliance has passed. Plaintiff’s lack of response to the Order indicates an intent to not prosecute this case, and subjects this case to dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)(district courts may dismiss an action if a Plaintiff fails to comply with an order of the court); see also Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989)(dismissal with prejudice appropriate where warning given); Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982)(court may dismiss sua sponte).

Accordingly, it is recommended that this case is dismissed without prejudice. It is recommended that the Clerk of Court close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Thomas E. Rogers, III

June 17, 2021 Thomas E. Rogers, III

Florence, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff’s attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.

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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 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); see 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

Post Office Box 2317

Florence, South Carolina 29503

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); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).