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

Aaron Vaughn Raber, C/A No.: 9:22-cv-3002-SAL

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER J. Reuben Long Detention Center,

Defendant.

This matter is before the court for review of the December 22, 2022 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry, made in accordance with

(b)(1)(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 12.] In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing this case because Plaintiff has failed to name a “person” who is subject to suit under

.

at 2–3. Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report.

. Plaintiff has failed to file objections, and the time for doing so has expired. 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,

, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part.

(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 12, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without

prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sherri A. Lydon United States District Judge March 14, 2023 Columbia, South Carolina