United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
TERRY L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff Harold Anderson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action on October 24, 2013. (Doc. #1). This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court dismiss this action without prejudice and without service of process. (Doc. #10). Objections to the Report were due on November 15, 2013. Plaintiff filed no objections, and the matter is now ripe for disposition.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Camby v. Davis , 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, "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 & Accident Ins. Co. , 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report and concludes that it accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. Accordingly, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #10). This ...