United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville 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 Kevin F. McDonald, who recommends summarily
dismissing this action without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. See ECF No. 10.
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); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
has not 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 the Magistrate
Judge's R & R [ECF No. 10]. Accordingly, the Court
DISMISSES this action without
prejudice and without issuance and service of
IS SO ORDERED.
 The Magistrate Judge issued the R
& R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). The Court is mindful of its
duty to liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants
such as Plaintiff. 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.”).
 Plaintiff's objections were due by
February 4, 2019. See ECF Nos. 10 & 12.
Plaintiff did file a letter within the time for filing
objections, see ECF No. 16, but this letter does not
contain any “specific written objections” to the
R & R. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Instead,
Plaintiff appears to be confused about a docket entry
regarding the transfer of case management from the Greenville
Division civil case manager to the Florence Division civil
case manager. See ECF No. 11. This transfer of case
management was purely clerical/ministerial in nature and has
nothing to do with the Court's review of the R & R or
 The Magistrate Judge also recommended
declining to give Plaintiff leave to amend, and the Court
agrees Plaintiff cannot cure the jurisdictional defects by
mere amendment. Accordingly, the Court is dismissing this
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which
requires dismissal without prejudice. See 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