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

Cheynne Chong, ) Case No. 6:23-cv-00271-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint. 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 Jacquelyn D. Austin for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On January 30, 2023, the Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to provide certain documents to bring this case into proper form for further evaluation and possible service of process. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff failed to respond to the order. On March 6, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of the court. ECF No. 10. The Magistrate Judge advised the Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences for failing to do so. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report, and the time to do so has lapsed. 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 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.” (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 agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [3] is found as MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge June 6, 2023 Spartanburg, South Carolina