Goss v. Richardson

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: May 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03618
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

Darrell L. Goss, ) C/A No. 2:24-cv-03618-BHH-MGB ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) vs. ) ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Stacey Richardson and Christina Catoe Bigelow,) ) DEFENDANTS. ) )

Plaintiff Darrell L. Goss, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action on June 21, 2024, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 28, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 17.) On March 31, 2025, this Court issued an Order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion. (Dkt. No. 18.) Plaintiff’s response was due by May 1, 2025, and he failed to respond to the motion. On May 7, 2025, the Court issued an Order extending the deadline for Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ Motion to May 26, 2025. (Dkt. No. 20.) Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond, this action could be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) Plaintiff has still failed to respond to Defendants’ Motion. Based on the foregoing, it appears the Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action. Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with this Court’s orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989). IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

May 30, 2025 MARY ON BAKER Charleston, South Carolina UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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 835 Charleston, South Carolina 29402 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).