UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Oluwasegun Israel Isioye, _) Civil Action No.: 4:17-cv-03484-RBH Plaintiff, v. ORDER Coastal Carolina University and Preston McEver Floyd, _) Defendants. oo) This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, who recommends granting Defendant Coastal Carolina University’s motion to dismiss and dismissing this action with prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).! See ECF No. 78. 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 this Court. See Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R 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 with instructions. See

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No parties have filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.” In the absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the

w 5c.) The Magistrate Judge issued the R & R in accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02

2 Defendants’ objections were due by September 3, 2019, and Plaintiff's objections were due by September 6, 2019. See ECF Nos. 78 & 79.

Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis,

, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no

clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note)). After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 78]. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss [ECF No. 72] and DISMISSES this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina s/ R. Bryan Harwell October 1, 2019 R. Bryan Harwell Chief United States District Judge

2