Opinion
C/A No. 1:10-2515-JFA-SVH.
March 7, 2011
ORDER
The pro se plaintiff, Mark Vincent Davenport, Jr., brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his constitutional rights were violated.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a Report and Recommendation and opines that this matter should be dismissed for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
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 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)(1).
After the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, the Magistrate Judge issued a Roseboro order on February 1, 2011, advising the plaintiff of the importance of a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 D.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). The plaintiff did not respond. The Roseboro order was returned to the Clerk of Court's office via the United States Postal Service on February 15, 2011 marked "Return to Sender" and "No Longer at this Address." The plaintiff was previously directed to keep the court apprised of any address change.
The plaintiff was also advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on February 16, 2011. However, the plaintiff failed to file objections. 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).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 7, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina