McConnell v. The City of York

Opinion

ipaes Disp, ey & SO, Syne /S ny Copa” IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION QUANTENY ANTONIO MCCONNELL, also § known as Quanteny McConnell, #277085, § Plaintiff, § § VS. § Civil Action No. 0:23-2391-MGL § THE CITY OF YORK; LT. TIMOTHY § DOVER, York Police Department; JACOB § GOFORTH, York Police Department; and § WES BURRELL, Sgt, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING THIS CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, AND RENDERING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Quanteny Antonio McConnell (McConnell), who is representing himself, filed this action against the above-named Defendants, alleging violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending the Court dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on August 22, 2024. To date, McConnell has failed

to file any objections. Although the Report was returned to the Court as undeliverable, the Magistrate Judge previously advised McConnell of his duty “to always keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing . . . if [his] address changes for any reason, so as to assure that orders or other matters that specify deadlines for [him] to meet will be received by [him].” August 30, 2023 Order at 7. The Magistrate Judge further advised McConnell’s failure to comply with this requirement is deemed inexcusable and could result in dismissal of his case. Id. Therefore, the Court will proceed to review the Report under the standard set forth herein. “[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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–46 (4th Cir. 1985). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case under the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of prosecution. As such, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is necessarily RENDERED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 3rd day of October 2024, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.