United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
F. ANDERSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jordan (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,
filed this civil action on August 16, 2018 against Defendant
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank concerning the sale of 124 Bakersland
Road, Chapin, South Carolina. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed
this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
1915.(ECF No. 8). In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.),
this case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for Review.
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a
thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and
opines that this action should be dismissed without
prejudice. (ECF No. 9 at 5). The Report sets forth, in
detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards
without a recitation. (ECF No. 9). The Magistrate Judge
required Plaintiff to file objections by September 4, 2018.
See Dkt. Entry for (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff did not
file objections to the Report and the time to do so has now
district court is required to conduct only a de novo review
of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report
to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W.Va. Bd. of
Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In
the absence of specific objections to portions of the
Magistrate's Report, this Court is not required to give
an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Thus, the
Court must only review those portions of the Report to which
Plaintiff has made a specific written objection. Diamond
v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316
(4th Cir. 2005).
Plaintiff did not timely file objections to the Report. The
Magistrate Judge allowed Plaintiff ample time to respond to
the Report and Plaintiff failed to do so. Without specific
objections to the Report, this Court may adopt the Report
carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this
case, as well as the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report (ECF No. 9).
Therefore, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
 “Pro se complaints and
pleadings, however inartfully pleaded, must be liberally
construed and held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Ally v. Yadkin Cty.
Sheriff Dept., 698 Fed.Appx. 141, 142 (4th Cir. 2017)
(citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
 Because Plaintiff is proceeding in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this
Court is charged with screening Plaintiff's lawsuit to
identify cognizable claims or to dismiss the complaint if,
after being liberally construed, it is frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief ...