IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION Jermaine Rodolfo Thomas, #19-02806, ) ) Plaintiff, ) C.A. No. 5:20-3190-HMH-KDW ) vs. ) OPINION & ORDER ) County of Spartanburg; Chuck Wright; ) Mary King; Genille Lundy; Sylvia Paz; ) and Clifford Hayes, ) ) Defendants. ) This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West made in accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Jermaine Rodolfo Thomas (“Thomas”), proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to

. In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge West recommends dismissing the action without issuance and service of process. Thomas filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce,

, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the 1 The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. See 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. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions.

(b)(1). magistrate judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983). Upon review, the court finds that Thomas’ objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his

claims. Accordingly, after review, the court finds that Thomas’ objections are without merit. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge West’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. It is therefore ORDERED that this action is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina November 10, 2020 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2