Summary
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed Tyleek Rayquaun Johnson’s pro se civil action with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court found the defendants’ motions to seal and for summary judgment moot and notified the parties of their right to appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court should accept an unobjected-to magistrate judge's recommendation after reviewing it for clear error.
- Whether the action should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
- Whether Defendants' motions to seal and for summary judgment remained pending after dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Holdings
- When no timely objection is filed, the district court need not conduct de novo review and instead must satisfy itself that no clear error appears on the face of the record before accepting the recommendation.
- The action was properly dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) after Plaintiff repeatedly failed to respond to the summary-judgment motion and failed to comply with the court's directive to respond.
- After dismissing the action with prejudice for failure to prosecute, the court found Defendants' motion to seal and motion for summary judgment moot.
Key quotations
“The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection.”
“Accordingly, this action is summarily DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Factual background
Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging claims arising from his incarceration or prison conditions. Defendants moved for summary judgment and to seal filings. Despite a Roseboro notice and a subsequent court order extending an opportunity to respond, Plaintiff failed to timely respond or otherwise indicate that he wished to continue prosecuting the case.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a pro se civil-rights complaint on April 22, 2025. Defendants moved to seal and for summary judgment, and the magistrate judge twice advised Plaintiff of the need to respond and directed him to file a response. Plaintiff did not timely respond. The magistrate judge recommended summary dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. With no objections filed, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, adopted it, and dismissed the action with prejudice, finding Defendants' motions moot.