United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Bryan Harwell, United States District Judge.
Robert Lee Clayton, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter is before the
Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R)
of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, 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. 88. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Court (1) dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) and (2) find as moot Defendants'
motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff's motion to
amend the complaint. R & R at 3-4.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and 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 R & R 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).
party has filed objections to the R & R,  and the time for
doing so has expired. In the absence of objections to the R
& R, the Court is not required to give any explanation
for adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendations.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir.
1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence
of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (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
thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds
no clear error and hereby adopts and incorporates by
reference the R & R [ECF No. 88] of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case with
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b). The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' motion for
summary judgment [ECF No. 59] and Plaintiff's motion to
amend the complaint [ECF No. 76].
 The Magistrate Judge reviewed
Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to the screening
provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
The Court is mindful of its duty to liberally construe the
pleadings of pro se litigants. See Gordon v. Leeke,
574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). But see Beaudett v.
City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985)
(“Principles requiring generous construction of pro se
complaints are not, however, without limits. Gordon
directs district courts to construe pro se complaints
liberally. It does not require those courts to conjure up
questions never squarely presented to them.”).
 The R & R indicates the dismissal
should be with prejudice. See R & R at 2;
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“Unless the
dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this
subdivision (b) . . . operates as an adjudication on the
 The Clerk mailed Plaintiff a copy of
the R & R on November 28, 2016. See ECF No. 89.
On December 6, 2016, that mailing was returned as
undeliverable. See ECF No. 90.
The record shows that on May 25, 2016 (approximately
one month after Plaintiff commenced this action), the
Magistrate Judge issued an order informing Plaintiff that he
was responsible for notifying the Clerk in writing if his
address changed, that his failure to do so would not be
excused by the Court, and that “your case may be
dismissed for violating this Order.” ECF No. 10 at 3.
Plaintiff has failed to notify the Clerk of his new address
and thus has failed to comply with the May 25 order. See
generally Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th
Cir. 1989) (finding the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's action with
prejudice because the magistrate judge “specifically
warned [the plaintiff] that failure to comply with [an] order
would result in a recommendation that the district court
dismiss the suit”).
 Objections to the R & R were due
by December 15, 2016. See ECF No. ...