Thomas v. Clements ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Charles Ray Thomas, II, Case No.: 4:21-cv-1952-SAL Plaintiff, v. ORDER Edward Clements, John Jepertinger, Karen Parrott, Travis S. Scott, Defendants. This matter is before the court for review of the August 2, 2021 Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) of United States Magistrate Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 11.] In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 41(b). No party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired. 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and 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 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 11, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Sherri A. Lydon January 31, 2022 Sherri A. Lydon Florence, South Carolina United States District Judge