IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION Brian Austin Taylor, ) Civil Action No. 9:20-cv-01688-RMG ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) H. Lee; H. Stanley; R. Brown; ) ORDER AND OPINION K. Jones; Dr. Patotto, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“R &R”) of the Magistrate Judge recommending the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s case for lack of prosecution. (Dkt. No. 32). For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the R & R as the Order of the Court. I. Background On July 30, 2020, Defendants R. Brown and K. Jones filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 25) and Defendants Patotto, H. Lee and H. Stanley filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the case. (Dkt. Nos. 26; 27). On July 31, 2020, the Court entered a Roseboro Order, which was mailed to Plaintiff. (Dkt. Nos. 29; 30). The Roseboro Order advised Plaintiff of the significance of a dispositive motion and that he was required to file a response to the motions. Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to file a properly supported response, Defendants’ dispositive motions may be granted and end his case. Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to Defendants’ dispositive motions was August 31, 2020. Plaintiff did not file a response. On September 28, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued an R & R recommending the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 32). The matter is ripe for the Court’s review. II. Standard

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court that has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber,

, 270–71 (1976). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). This Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R Plaintiff specifically objects. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Where Plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, “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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). “Moreover, in the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court

need not give any explanation for adopting the recommendation.” Wilson v. S.C. Dept of Corr., No. 9:14-CV-4365-RMG,

, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 12, 2015). See also Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983). Defendant has not filed objections in this case and the R & R is reviewed for clear error. III.Discussion Upon a review of the R & R, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Plaintiff’s case is subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez,

(4th Cir. 1982). See also Davis v. Williams,

(4th Cir. 1978); Rule 41(b), FED. R. CIV. P. The Magistrate Judge issued an Order that was mailed to Plaintiff explaining that Plaintiff was required to file a response to Defendants’ dispositive motions, or Defendants’ dispositive motions may be granted and end his case. (Dkt. Nos. 29;30). The

deadline for Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ dispositive motions was August 31, 2020. As Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendants’ dispositive motions, his case is dismissed for lack of prosecution.

IV.Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the Court adopts the R & R (Dkt. No. 32) as the Order of the Court and Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED for lack of prosecution. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_s/Richard Mark Gergel_________ Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge October 19, 2020 Charleston, South Carolina