Hicks v. Lane

Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Horace Hicks ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this action on July 16, 2018. [ECF No. 1]. On January 7, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for sanction and to dismiss. [ECF No. 27]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of the motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response by February 7, 2019. [ECF No. 28]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendants' motion may be granted, thereby ending his case. Id. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court's Roseboro order, Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion.

On February 12, 2019, the court ordered Plaintiff to advise by February 26, 2019, whether he wished to continue with the case. [ECF No. 33]. Plaintiff was further advised that if he failed to respond, the undersigned would recommend that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has filed no response. As such, it appears to the court he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. March 1, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina

/s/

Shiva V. Hodges

United States Magistrate Judge

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:

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).