IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Andrew Ware, Case No. 2:21-cv-03514-RMG

Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND OPINION Bryan Stirling, Tonya James, and Kevin Burnham, Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 13). Plaintiff did not file an objection to the R & R. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R & R as the Order of the Court. I. Background Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis to alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to

. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care was violated when there was a delay in Plaintiff receiving a surgery to treat a hernia. Plaintiff asks the Court to schedule his surgery and award him at least 25,000.00 in damages. This case was assigned to a Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to bring the case in the proper form. (Dkt. No. 5). Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. The Magistrate Judge then reviewed the complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions

. Upon that review, the Magistrate Judge issued an R & R 1 recommending the Plaintiff’s complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without further leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 13). II. Standard The Magistrate Judge makes a recommendation to the Court that has no presumptive weight, and therefore the responsibility to make a final determination remains with Court. Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1)(C). Where the plaintiff objects to the R & R, the Court “makes a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

In the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R & R to “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note; see also Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983) (“In the absence of objection . . . we do not believe that it requires an explanation.”). III. Discussion After careful review of the Complaint and the R & R, the Court agrees with the determination of the Magistrate Judge that this action should be summarily dismissed without prejudice. The Magistrate judge correctly found that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim against any of the Defendants. The Magistrate Judge aptly identified that the

pleadings do not make specific allegations of personal involvement by any of the Defendants. For that reason, and others stated by the Magistrate Judge, the Court accepts the R & R as the order of the court.

2 IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 13) as the order of the Court and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice and without further leave to amend. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_s/ Richard Mark Gergel Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge

November 15, 2022 Charleston, South Carolina

3