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

Leviticus D. Young, ) Case No. 6:18-cv-03351-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) ) Laurens County Sheriff’s Office, Don ) Reynolds, Andrew I. Dutton, Keith ) McIntosh, C. Martin, J. McIntosh, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ )

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

. ECF No. 1. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition, and Defendants filed a reply. ECF Nos. 35, 44, 46. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On November 8, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motion for summary judgment be granted. ECF No. 48. 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.1 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. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [35] is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 Plaintiff requested and received two extensions of time to file objections. The most recent extension gave Plaintiff until February 3, 2020, to file objections. ECF No. 54. s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge March 5, 2020 Spartanburg, South Carolina

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.