ORDER

TERRY WOOTEN, District Judge

Plaintiff, Walter D. Bristol ("plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action on January 12, 2009. (Doc. #1). The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Bruce H. Hendricks pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), DSC.

This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by the Magistrate Judge to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. #10). On January 26, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court dismiss this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (Doc. #10). The plaintiff filed no objections to the report. Objections were due on February 12, 2009.

This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation 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 has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #10).

IT IS SO ORDERED.