IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION

Larry Blakney, ) Case No. 4:19-cv-02310-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) ) B. Pate, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to

. ECF No. 1. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On September 10, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process because Plaintiff alleges a depravation of personal property claim which does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. ECF No. 13. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report, and the time to do so has lapsed. 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. See Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See

(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a 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.” (citation omitted)). As stated above, Plaintiff has not objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report. Accordingly, after considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. This action is dismissed without prejudice and

without issuance and service of process.1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge October 8, 2019 Spartanburg, South Carolina

1 Because Plaintiff can seek return of his property through the state court, the deprivation of his property does not give rise to a constitutional deprivation. Accordingly, the undersigned is of the opinion that Plaintiff cannot cure the identified defects and declines to give Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y,

(4th Cir. 2015). NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.