United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
TERRY L. WOOTEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Saied Mousa Ramadan filed this pro se Bivens action on October 3, 2013. (Doc. #1). This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court transfer Plaintiff's action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. (Doc. #20). Objections to the Report were due on January 17, 2014. 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, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #20). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. (Doc. #1). The filing fee issues, ...