IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Geneva Holiday, C/A No. 3:23-cv-1243-JFA-PJG

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER Ameris Bank,

Defendant.

Geneva Holiday (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action against the defendant. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings. After Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, the court issued two separate orders advising Plaintiff of the motion and the consequences if she failed to respond. (ECF Nos. 13 & 20). Despite this, Plaintiff failed to respond. Consequently, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”). (ECF No. 23). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that this action should be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.

The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.

1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with

(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). 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. Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). Plaintiff was advised of her right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on July 7, 2023.

The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by July 21, 2023.

Plaintiff failed to file objections. Thus, this matter is ripe for review. A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See

(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole,

(4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983). Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiffs action should be dismissed for failure to prosecute. After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 23). Consequently, this action is dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution. All other pending motions are terminated as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. peg Cader tons August 7, 2023 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge