United States District Court, D. South Carolina
F. Anderson, Jr., United States District Judge.
pro se plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the
Spartanburg County Jail at the time he filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He allegesth at the
defendants violated his constitutional rights related to his
medical care while at the Jail.
defendants filed motions for summary judgment after the
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The Magistrate
Judge issued an order pursuant to Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying the
plaintiff of the summary dismissal procedure and possible
consequences if the plaintiff failed to adequately respond to
the motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff did not
respond to the defendants' motions. Both times the
Roseboro order mailed to the plaintiff was returned
to the Clerk by the U.S. Postmaster as undeliverable.
Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a
Report and Recommendation wherein he suggests that this court
should dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of
prosecution and failure to comply with court
orders. The Report sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the
court incorporates such without a recitation.
plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the
Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on
May 31, 2019 (ECF No. 53). On June 21, 2019, the plaintiff
filed a notice of change of address and requested an
extension of time to file objections to the Report. This
court granted the motion and set a new objection deadline of
July 22, 2019. As of the date of this order, no objections
have been filed and the deadline has now expired.
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). The court must
“only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on
the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
“[G]eneral and conclusory objections that do not direct
the court to a specific error in the Magistrate's
proposed findings and recommendations” are not specific
objections and do not warrant de novo review. Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 48 (4th Cir. 1982).
carefully reviewing the applicable laws and the record in
this case, this court accepts the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation and finds that that the Report
fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the
correct principles of law.
this action is dismissed with prejudice for lack of
prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Clerk is directed to
terminate all pending motions in this case.
 The Magistrate Judge's review is
made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02. 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 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. 28 U.S.C.
 The Magistrate Judge issued two proper
form orders early in this case, advising the plaintiff that
that if he failed to bring his case into proper form, the
action may be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure
to comply with an order of the court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41.
Ballard v. Carlson,882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989);
Davis v. Williams,588 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1978);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The plaintiff eventually complied and