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

Samuel Lamont Barnette, ) C/A No.: 0:23-3890-CMC-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) REPORT AND ) South Carolina Hwy. Patrol and ) RECOMMENDATION Robert H. Gleich, South Carolina ) State Trooper, ) ) ) Defendants. )

On September 24, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 60].1 As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to ,

(4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of the motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response by October 25, 2024. [ECF No. 61]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the motion may be granted. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s order, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ motion.

1 This case was previously stayed pending the disposition of Plaintiff’s criminal charges. [ECF No. 53]. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment notified the court that Plaintiff pled guilty to the state charges against him. [ECF No. 60]. The stay was lifted on October 8, 2024. [ECF No. 63]. Therefore, this case is ready for review. On October 30, 2024, the court ordered Plaintiff to advise by November 13, 2024, whether he wished to continue with this case. [ECF No. 66]. Plaintiff

was further advised that if he failed to respond, the undersigned would recommend this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff filed no

response. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this case. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams,

(4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. SP Ut Slalger December 9, 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).