United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
the court for review is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) filed on April 29, 2019
(ECF No. 105). The court ACCEPTS the
Magistrate Judge's Report and incorporates it herein by
reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, the court
GRANTS Defendant Laura Caldwell, Matthew
Kalb, Russell Painter, and Matthew Simon's Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 92) and DISMISSES
this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards,
which this court incorporates herein without a full
recitation. (ECF No. 105 at 1-2.) As brief background, on
March 26, 2018, Plaintiff Richard Kough, proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action against Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) On January 11, 2019,
Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 92.)
On that same day, the Magistrate Judge entered a
Roseboro order, advising Plaintiff of the summary
judgment procedures and the consequences of failing to
adequately respond. (ECF No. 93.) However, despite being
granted two extensions, Plaintiff failed to respond to
Defendants' Motion. (ECF Nos. 95, 96, 102, 103.)
April 29, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered her Report. (ECF
No. 105.) The Report recommends granting Defendants'
Motion (ECF No. 92) and dismissing this action with prejudice
for failure to prosecute because “Plaintiff has filed
no response [to Defendants' Motion]. As such, it appears
to the court that Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants'
[M]otion and wishes to abandon his action.”
(Id. at 2 (citing Davis v. Williams, 588
F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b)).)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 for the District Court of South Carolina. The
Magistrate Judge only makes a recommendation to this court;
the responsibility to make a final determination remains with
this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,
270-71 (1976). This court engages in a de novo review of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which the
parties have made specific objections. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part,
the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the
matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
April 29, 2019, as part of the Report, the Magistrate Judge
notified the parties of their right to file objections by May
13, 2019. (ECF No. 105-1.) Neither of the parties filed any
objections to the Report by this date. In the absence of
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court
is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendations without modification. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Absent
objections, the court must only ensure that there is no clear
error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendations. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note). If a party
fails to file specific, written objections to the Report, the
party forfeits the right to appeal the court's decision
concerning the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). Accordingly,
since none of the parties filed any objections to the Report,
and the court observes no clear error on the face of the
record, the court accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report.
See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315; Camby, 718
F.2d at 199.
thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation provides
an accurate summary of the facts and law in this case.
Accordingly, the court ACCEPTS the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
105) and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons
set out in the Report, the court GRANTS
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 92) and
DISMISSES this action with
prejudice for failure to prosecute.
IS SO ORDERED.
 In Roseboro v. Garrison, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held
that district courts are required to provide pro se litigants
with an explanation of summary judgment ...