IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Orlando Gladney, ) C/A No.: 1:24-5490-JDA-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) REPORT AND Alvin S. Glenn; Lt. Walker Jaffery; ) RECOMMENDATION and Sgt. Lark, ) ) Defendants. ) )

Orlando Gladney (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint asserting allegations of constitutional violations. Pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. On October 8, 2024, the court ordered Plaintiff to sign the complaint, pay the filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and to complete the documents necessary to advance his case by October 29, 2024. [ECF No. 4]. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with the court’s order would subject the case to dismissal. . Plaintiff failed to file a response. On November 4, 2024, the court entered a second order directing Plaintiff to sign the complaint, pay the filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and to complete the documents necessary to advance his case by November 25, 2024. [ECF No. 7]. Plaintiff failed to file a response. Notwithstanding the court’s orders, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s orders to bring this case into proper form. 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.,

(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 Plaintiffs failure to respond to the court’s orders, the undersigned concludes he 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. PP U fledyer” December 5, 2024 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.’” ,

(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.

(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 901 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.

(b)(1); ,

(1985); ,

(4th Cir. 1985); ,

(4th Cir. 1984).