Opinion
Civil Action No.: 4:07-77.
July 17, 2007
ORDER
On January 8, 2007, Plaintiff Michael R. Ray filed the instant pro se action. (Doc. #1). On January 25, 2007, the Plaintiff filed the pending motion to dismiss without prejudice. (Doc. #6). The Defendants filed a letter on January 29, 2007, stating "[w]e are in agreement with the dismissal of the case and we have not been served." (Doc. #7).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, on April 24, 2007. (Doc. #8). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Rogers recommends that the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss be granted and this action be dismissed without prejudice. No party to this action filed objections to the Report.
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 and the filings in this case. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, and in light of no party to this action filing objections to the Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.