United States District Court, D. South Carolina
ORDER AND OPINION
BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS, District Judge.
The plaintiff Larry Coles ("the plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. On June 2, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this case be dismissed with prejudice in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). (ECF No. 47.)
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 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 47 at 4.) On June 11, 2015, the envelope containing the plaintiff's copy of the Report and Recommendation was returned to the Clerk of Court, marked "Return to Sender, Attempted - Not Known, Unable to Forward." (ECF No. 49.) The plaintiff was previously advised by order filed November 19, 2014 (ECF No. 8), of his responsibility to notify the Court in writing if his address changed. That order also informed the plaintiff that his case could be dismissed for failing to comply with the Court's order. (ECF No. 9 at 3.)
The plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on June 19, 2015. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. 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 and advisory committee's note).
Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations for clear error. Finding none, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are subject to summary dismissal. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein by reference and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to comply with this Court's orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir.1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).
All pending motions are ...