Pearson v. Ridgeland Correctional Institution, 1:17-cv-02515

Plaintiff Shawn Pearson was reassigned and opened this case after an earlier clerical reassignment from Mast v. Ridgeland Correctional Institution et al.
The magistrate judge ordered Pearson (the plaintiff) on September 26, 2017 to submit a completed complaint, service documents, and filing-fee paperwork by October 17, 2017.
A second order on October 20, 2017 extended the deadline to November 13, 2017 and again warned that failure to comply could lead to dismissal.
Pearson failed to respond to either court order and did not complete the required filings to advance the case.
The magistrate judge concluded Pearson’s noncompliance reflected an intention not to pursue the matter and recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The report notified the parties of their right to file specific written objections within 14 days and explained consequences of failure to object.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute	Pearson did not file materials or respond to court orders (no active argument presented)	Court has authority to dismiss for noncompliance and lack of prosecution	Case recommended dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for failure to prosecute

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (court has inherent authority to dismiss actions for failure to prosecute)
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (2005) (district court need not conduct de novo review absent timely objections to magistrate judge report)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (failure to timely object to a report and recommendation waives right to appeal)
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985) (procedural safeguards regarding objections to magistrate recommendations)
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984) (standards for appellate review when objections to magistrate reports are not filed)