United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Florence Division
R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge
Plaintiff Alcides Agustin Alvarez Monge, proceeding pro se,  filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Dr. William Miles (“Defendant”) on April 8, 2014. See Compl., ECF No. 1. On January 26, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. See Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 42. On February 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. See Pl.’s Resp., ECF No. 46. After receiving an extension from the Court, Defendant filed a reply in support of his motion on March 2, 2015. See Def.’s Reply, ECF No. 52.
The matter is now before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, 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. 54. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment due to Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismiss this action. See Id. at 8.
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 Defendant’s ...