Opinion
C/A No. 9:15-3677-DCN-BM
10-22-2015
Jeffrey Lynne Haren, Petitioner, v. J. Meeks, Warden F.C.I. Williamsburg, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Petitioner, Jeffrey Lynne Haren, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution-Williamsburg and challenges his Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement.
By Order of the Court dated September 21, 2015, Petitioner was given twenty-one (21) days to bring his case into proper form by paying the five dollar ($5) filing fee or completing and returning a Form AO 240 (application to proceed in forma pauperis). Petitioner was specifically admonished that if he failed to provide the item specified within the period prescribed in the Order, the file would be forwarded to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge for a recommendation. See In Re: Procedures in Civil Actions Filed by Non-Prisoner Pro Se Litigants, No. 3:07-mc-5015-JFA.
Petitioner failed to provide the requested item by the proper form deadline, or to contact the Court in any way. As such, Petitioner has failed to complete his proper form process and Respondent has not been served. Therefore, it is recommended that this case be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure of the Petitioner to comply with this Court's Order or to properly prosecute his case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989). cert. denied sub nom., Ballard v. Volunteers of Am., 493 U.S. 1084 (1990) [Magistrate judge's prior explicit warning that a recommendation of dismissal would result from the plaintiff failing to obey his order was proper grounds for the district court to dismiss suit when the plaintiff did not comply despite warning].
The Clerk shall mail this Report and Recommendation to Petitioner at his last known address. If the Petitioner notifies the Court within the time set forth for filing objections to this Report and Recommendation that he wishes to continue with this case and provides the item requested in the Court's Order dated September 21, 2015 (ECF No. 5), the Clerk is directed to vacate this Report and Recommendation and return this file to the undersigned for further handling. If, however, no objections are filed, the Clerk shall forward this Report and Recommendation to the District Judge for disposition. See Ballard, 882 F.2d at 95-96 [holding that district court's dismissal following an explicit and reasonable warning was not an abuse of discretion].
The parties are referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.
/s/_________
Bristow Marchant
United States Magistrate Judge October 22, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina
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 P.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).