IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Robert Williams, C/A No. 3:19-2267-JFA-PJG

Plaintiff,

vs. ORDER Chelsea Kot; Mandy Self; Kim Y. Davis; Carri Grube Lybarker; Spectrum; Kenneth Sorenson; United States of America, The Federal Communications Commission; Ajit Pai,

Defendants.

Robert Williams (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging violations of his civil rights. (ECF No. 1). 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 the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 8). 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.

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (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)(1). Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on October 2, 2019. (ECF No. 8). The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by October 16, 2019. See

However, Plaintiff failed to file any objections to the Report. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an 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. 8). Therefore, Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. CH peegt 5. Coadartons November 14, 2019 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge