United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
Bryan Harwell, United States District Judge
matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge
Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.).
See R & R [ECF No. 46]. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Court grant Defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismiss this entire case based on the
Rooker-Feldmandoctrine. Id. at p. 8.
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).
parties have 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 therefore adopts and incorporates by
reference the R & R [ECF No. 46] of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 30] and
DISMISSES this case without
IS SO ORDERED.
 See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co.,
263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462 (1983).
 Defendants' objections were due by
November 21, 2017, and Plaintiff's objections were due by
November 27, 2017. See ECF Nos. 46 & 47.
 This dismissal is without prejudice
because it is based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
which is jurisdictional in nature. See Exxon Mobil Corp.
v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291 (2005)
(“Rooker and Feldman exhibit the
limited circumstances in which this Court's appellate
jurisdiction over state-court judgments, 28 U.S.C. §
1257, precludes a United States district court from
exercising subject-matter jurisdiction in an action it would
otherwise be empowered to adjudicate under a congressional
grant of authority, e.g., § 1330 (suits against
foreign states), § 1331 (federal question), and §
1332 (diversity).”); Thana v. Bd. of License
Comm'rs for Charles Cty., Maryland, 827 F.3d 314,
318-19 (4th Cir. 2016) (same); Am. Reliable Ins. Co. v.
Stillwell, 336 F.3d 311, 316 (4th Cir. 2003) (“We
regard the [Rooker-Feldman] doctrine as
jurisdictional.”); S. Walk at Broadlands
Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands,
LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013)
(“[D]ismissals for lack of jurisdiction should be
without prejudice because the court, having determined that
it lacks jurisdiction over the action, is incapable of
reaching a disposition on the merits of the underlying