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

Russell C. Geissler, ) Case No. 4:20-cv-02597-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) ) South Carolina Department of ) Corrections and Bryan Sterling, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ )

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

. ECF No. 1. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On October 30, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition and Defendants filed a reply. ECF Nos. 34, 37. On June 29, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motion be granted. ECF No. 40. 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 has not filed objections to the Report and the time to do so has lapsed.1

1 The Court notes that the Report was returned to this Court as undeliverable. ECF No. 42. The enveloped was marked “released.”

Plaintiff was specifically warned that 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. The motion for summary judgment [25] is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge September 8, 2021

it was his responsibility to keep the Court updated as to any change of address and has successfully updated his address with the Court several times. ECF No. 7; see also ECF Nos. 13, 26, 35. Spartanburg, South Carolina