United States District Court, D. South Carolina
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge
pro se Plaintiff brings that action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various claims against Defendants
and seeking money damages. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2),
D.S.C., the case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a
thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and
opines that this Court should dismiss this action for lack of
prosecution and for failure to comply with this Court's
orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (ECF No. 50). 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
April 16, 2019, Defendants Ronald Hollister, Nurse
Practitioner Putnam, Physicians Assistant Rae, Marshall
Stowers, and John Vandermosten (“Defendants”)
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 38). On April 17,
2019, this Court issued an Order pursuant to Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising
Plaintiff of the dismissal procedure and the possible
consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the
motion. (ECF. No. 39.) Plaintiff's response was due on
May 20, 2019. Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion. On
May 24, 2019, this Court issued an Order extending the
deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' motion
to June 14, 2019. (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff failed to respond.
was also advised of his right to object to the Report, which
was entered on the docket on June 20, 2019. (ECF No. 50). The
Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by
July 5, 2019. Id. However, Plaintiff did not file
any objections and the time within which to do so has now
expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report
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).
Magistrate Judge has allowed Plaintiff ample time to respond
to the Court's orders, Defendants' motion, and the
Report, yet Plaintiff has failed to do so. The Roseboro
Order and the Report sent to Plaintiff were returned
with a notation from the United States Postal Service stating
“NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED.” (ECF Nos. 41
& 52). Plaintiff previously received the order notifying
him of the obligation to keep his address updated (ECF No.
7), and Plaintiff was clearly aware of this requirement
because he submitted a notice of change of address to this
Court twice. On December 3, 2018, and again on December 17,
2018, Plaintiff provided this Court with his new permanent
address. (ECF Nos. 20 & 25).
review of the docket reveals that Plaintiff has not notified
the Clerk of any subsequent address change since then. Based
on the mail that has been returned by the USPS as
undeliverable, Plaintiff has failed to provide an updated,
useable address to this Court. See Fair v. Alvin S. Glenn
Det. Ctr., 2017 WL 6309421, at *2 (D.S.C. Nov. 28,
2017), report and recommendation adopted, No.
5:17-CV-00976-TMC, 2017 WL 6270625 (D.S.C. Dec. 7, 2017)
(“Plaintiffs failure to provide an updated address and
failure to prosecute this case subjects this case to
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 and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 50). Thus, this action is
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
 The Magistrate Judge's review is
made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). The 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 the Court. Mathews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or
recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
 This Court previously dismissed
Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Lutz on May 15,
2019. (ECF No. 42).
 On December 3, 2018, and again on
December 17, 2018, Plaintiff provided this Court with the