Opinion
Case No. 2:10-cv-1783-RMG.
October 25, 2010
ORDER
Plaintiff filed this civil rights action and is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Therefore, this matter is before the court upon the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The record includes the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report 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(b)(1). No objections have been filed to the magistrate's report.
Absent a timely objection from a dissatisfied party, a district court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, a Magistrate Judge's factual or legal conclusions. Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); Wells v. Shriner's Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997). Here, because Plaintiff did not file any specific, written objections, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of any portion of the report and recommendation. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's R R (Dkt. No. 14) as the Order of this Court, and it is ORDERED that Complaint in the above-captioned case be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 25, 2010 Charleston, South Carolina