United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
January 14, 2015
Beatrice E. Weaver and Gary Weaver, Plaintiffs,
Dillon Department of Social Services; Jackie Rowland; Karen English; Pansy Page McElveen; Dillon Internal Medicine Associates, P.A.; James P. Wallace, M.D.; Felicia Gainey; Harriet Shealey; Cottonwood Villa Assisted Living Facility, Inc.; Dillon County Sheriff's Office; Deputy Johnnie May Smith; Deputy Chaddie Hayes; Deputy Linda Maimquist; Dillon County Emergency Medical Services; Florence Visiting Nurses Services, Inc.; John D. McInnis; John Does 1-10; and Doe Partnerships, Corporations, and/or other Entities 1-10, Defendants.
R. BRYAN HARWELL, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Beatrice E. Weaver and Gary Weaver ("Plaintiffs"), proceeding pro se, filed their complaint against the above named Defendants in the Dillon County Court of Common Pleas on February 21, 2014. See Compl., ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2. The matter was removed to this Court on July 2, 2014. See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 94. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See id. at 5.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. 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 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 with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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'") (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with a court order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.