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

James Derek Kirby, ) Case No. 1:21-cv-03796-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Southern Health Care, T. Gordon, ) Nurse Lydia, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court on 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 Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On January 3, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this action be dismissed without issuance of service of process. ECF No. 12. 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 several pieces of mail to Plaintiff have been returned as undeliverable including the proper form order and order directing Plaintiff to cure certain deficiencies in his Complaint. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has not updated his address; therefore, the Court has no way to communicate with him. To date the Report has not been returned. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 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)). After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the

Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without issuance of service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge February 15, 2022 Spartanburg, South Carolina