IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Jonathan Harrison, C/A No. 2:19-cv-00947-JFA-MGB

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

United States,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Jonathan Harrison (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, commenced this action pursuant to the Federal Torts Claim Act alleging improper medical care while incarcerated in Pennsylvania and South Carolina federal prisons. Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 34) and Plaintiff was advised of the motion, along with the consequences if he failed to respond, via a Roseboro order. (ECF No. 35). In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), the case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for review. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this Court should dismiss this action because

1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). 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,

(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

(b). Plaintiff has failed to respond to the dispositive motion or otherwise prosecute his claims. (ECF No. 41). The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation. Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on September 11, 2019. (ECF No. 41). The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by September 25, 2019. Jd. However, Plaintiff did not file any objections or otherwise respond. 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,

(4th Cir. 1983). After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 41). Thus, Plaintiff's action is dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez,

(4th Cir. 1982).

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dptoge 5: Comabsen Gp October 17, 2019 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge