UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Andre Junior Covington, ) Civil Action No.: 4:21-cv-01685-RBH Plaintiff, v. ORDER Brandon Whitaker, James Dixon, Keith Thomas, and Daniel Scott ) Defendants. oo) This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Thomas E. Rogers, III, who recommends granting Defendants Dixon, Scott, and Whitaker’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 40] and granting Defendant Thomas’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 41].' See ECF No. 82. 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 this Court. See Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No parties have filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.” In the absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the

56) The Magistrate Judge issued the R & R in accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02

2 Defendants’ objections were due by August 8, 2022, and Plaintiff’s objections were due by August 11,2022. See ECF Nos. 82 & 83.

Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis,

, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note)). Having found no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 83], GRANTS Defendants Dixon, Scott, and Whitaker’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 40], GRANTS Defendant Thomas’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 41], DISMISSES this action with prejudice, and DIRECTS the Clerk to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina s/ R. Bryan Harwell August 29, 2022 R. Bryan Harwell Chief United States District Judge

2