United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge
Plaintiff, Ronald Estep, 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 Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution (ECF No. 44) be granted. (ECF No. 56). Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report. In fact, the Report, which was mailed to Plaintiff’s last known address, was returned as undeliverable and marked “addressee unknown”.
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 record in this case, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 56) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, ...