Muhammad v. GEO Care, 3:12-cv-01196

Muhammad filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in the District of South Carolina (Columbia Division).
Plaintiff was involuntarily committed by the Aiken County Probate Court and resided at Geo Care at filing.
May 21, 2012 order required Muhammad to promptly notify the Clerk of Court of any address changes to ensure deadlines would be received.
Since filing a proper form for service, subsequent reports and an order were returned as 'wrong address' or 'no longer here,' and Muhammad has not provided a current mailing address.
As a result, neither the Court nor the Defendant could contact him regarding the case.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b), directing service of the recommendation to Muhammad’s last known address and outlining rights to object.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal under Rule 41(b) is proper.	Not stated in the report.	Dismissal is warranted due to Muhammad's failure to provide a current address.	Yes; dismissal with prejudice.

Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing objections to a magistrate's report)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (concerning when objections are necessary for de novo review)
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985) (procedural rules for objections)
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984) (prescribing standard of review on objections)