Covington v. Scott

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Abdul S. Covington, C/A No. 1:24-cv-5512-JFA Plaintiff, vs. ORDER Mr. Scott; J. Powell; and O.

Machado,

Defendants.

Abdul S. Covington (Plaintiff), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action on September 30, 2024. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review.

On October 4, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued an order authorizing service of process. (ECF No. 7). The order contained the following notice: You are ordered to always keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing (United States District Court, 901 Richland Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201) if your address changes for any reason, so as to assure that orders or other matters that specify deadlines for you to meet will be received by you. If as a result of your failure to comply with this order, you fail to meet a deadline set by this court, your case may be dismissed for violating this order.

Therefore, if you have a change of address before this case is ended, you must comply with this order by immediately advising the Clerk of Court in writing of such change of address and providing the court with the docket number of all pending cases you have filed with this court. Your failure to do so will not be excused by the court. (ECF No. 7).

On October 18, 2024, the Magistrate Judge’s order was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 11). The returned envelope reads, “Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward.” (ECF No. 11). Further, a handwritten notation on the envelope states, “Not in jail.” (ECF No. 11). Subsequently, on October 21, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Report), recommending this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute his case. (ECF No. 12). The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of his right to object to the Report. (ECF No. 12, pg. 4). However, Plaintiff failed to file objections, and the Report, which was mailed to the address of record, was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 15). Therefore, this matter is ripe for review.

A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

Here, Plaintiff failed to raise any objections, and therefore this Court is not required to explain its decision to adopt the recommendation. A review of the Report and prior orders indicate that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b).

After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 12). Consequently, this action is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED December 4, 2024 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Court Judge Page 3 of 3