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

Tara Zerlin Oliver, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 6:23-cv-540-TMC ) vs. ) ) Commissioner of the Social Security ) ORDER Administration, Mr. Shayne Thomas, ) ) ) Defendant. )

Tara Zerlin Oliver (“Oliver”), proceeding pro se, brought this action against the above- named Defendants. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), (e) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Now before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the court dismiss this action without issuance and service of process pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply with the court’s order. (ECF No. 12). The Report was mailed to Plaintiff at the address she provided the court, (ECF No. 13), and has not been returned as undeliverable. Therefore, Plaintiff is presumed to have received the Report. Plaintiff was advised of her right to file specific objections to the Report and of the consequences of failing to do so. (ECF No. 12 at 5). However, Plaintiff has not filed objections or any other response whatsoever, and the time to do so has now run. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review. The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Wimmer v. Cook,

(4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews v. Weber,

, 270–71 (1976)). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. Greenspan v. Brothers Prop. Corp.,

(D.S.C. 2015) (citing Camby v. Davis,

, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983)). Rather, “in the absence of a 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee's

note). Thus, having reviewed the Report and finding no clear error, the court agrees with, and wholly adopts, the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in the Report (ECF No.12), which is incorporated herein by reference.1 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge April 26, 2023 Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

1 The court would reach the same result under a de novo standard of review.