United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
TERRY L. WOOTEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Keith Hammonds, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). This matter is now 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) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 10). On March 3, 2015, the Report was mailed to the Plaintiff. (ECF No. 11). However, the Report was returned, marked undeliverable due to the expiration of Plaintiff's sentence, on March 17, 2015. (ECF No. 12). Objections were due by March 20, 2015. More than three months have now expired since the Report was mailed, and no objections were filed.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. 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 recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record and the Report and concludes that the Magistrate Judge accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) is ACCEPTED. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this ...