United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
OPINION & ORDER
M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge.
matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina. Romell Holmes
(“Holmes”), proceeding pro se, alleges a
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Holmes filed a motion for
entry of default on December 10, 2017. In her Report and
Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Gossett recommends denying
Holmes' motion because he failed to show that Defendants
Carroll and Charlton have failed to plead or otherwise defend
following proper service of process. (Report &
Recommendation 3, ECF No. 55.) Specifically, Holmes failed to
provide the court with any evidence that the subordinate
employees who accepted service on the Defendants Carroll and
Charlton's behalf are “agent[s] authorized by
appointment or by law to receive service of process” as
is required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Id., ECF No. 55); Fed.R.Civ.P.
filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on February
14, 2018.(Objs. 2, ECF No. 62.) Objections to the
Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file
specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party's
right to further judicial review, including appellate review,
if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge.
See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 &
n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific
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).
review, the court finds that Holmes' objections are
non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the
magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, or merely
restate his claims. Accordingly, after review, the court
finds that Holmes' objections are without merit.
Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate
judge's Report and the record in this case, the court
adopts Magistrate Judge Gossett's Report and
Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.
that the previous order adopting the Report and
Recommendation, dated February 28, 2018, docket number 59, is
vacated. It is further
that Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, docket
number 46, is denied.
IS SO ORDERED.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal
this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof,
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
 The recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility for making a final
determination remains with the United States District 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. The court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the
magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
 The court construes Holmes' motion
as seeking the entry of default pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 55(a) because the entry of default is a