C/A No. 1:20-cv-4369-JFA-SVH
Plaintiff William Theoplas Coleman, proceeding pro se, originally filed this action asserting claims of violations of his constitutional rights. 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. Upon receipt of the matter, the Magistrate Judge issued a proper form order on January 8, 2021. (ECF No. 6).
After receiving no response to the proper form order, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation ("Report") and opines that this action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (ECF No. 9). 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.
The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (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). --------
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on January 21, 2021. (ECF No. 9). The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by February 4, 2021. Id. Plaintiff failed to file any objections and the time for doing so has expired. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate's Report, 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).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that matter should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
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. 9). Thus, this matter is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. February 22, 2021
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge