United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
TIMOTHY M. CAIN, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 10 at 5). However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run. In fact, the Report and Recommendation which was mailed to Plaintiff's last known address was returned undeliverable. Plaintiff was advised by order filed March 13, 2014, of his responsibility to notify the court in writing if his address changed and that his case could be dismissed for failing to comply with the court's order.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "in 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 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 10) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED ...