Wilder v. United States

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Christopher T. Wilder, C/A No. 0:19-2874-JFA-PJG

Plaintiff,

vs. ORDER Warden, Ridgeland Correctional Institution,

Defendant.

Christopher T. Wilder (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for review. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this Court should dismiss this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (ECF No. 38). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation. On April 8, 2020, Warden (“Respondent”) filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 31). On April 9, 2020, the Court issued an Order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d

1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the dismissal procedure and the possible consequences of failing to adequately respond to motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 32). On June 11, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report which recommended this Court dismiss this action with prejudice for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 38). The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of his right to object to the Report by June 25, 2020. However, to date, Plaintiff has failed to respond in any way to the Court’s Order or Respondent’s pending motion. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 38). Therefore, Plaintiffs petition (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with prejudice and without issuance and service of process for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with a Court order. As such, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment shall be terminated. (ECF No. 31). IT IS SO ORDERED. 4. Cadet tons July 6, 2020 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge