IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

William Lee Jones, # 25468-171, C/A No. 1:23-cv-3893-JFA-SVH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER FBOP Regional Center,

Defendant.

William Lee Jones, (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review. After performing an initial review of the complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”),

Stat. 1321 (1996), including

and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 issued an order informing Plaintiff that the complaint contained several deficiencies as drafted and providing him with an opportunity to correct those deficiencies in an amended complaint. (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff was warned that failure to correct the deficiencies in his complaint would subject the case to dismissal. Plaintiff failed to respond or correct the deficiencies.

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). After Plaintiff failed to respond, the Magistrate Judge prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”). (ECF No. 9). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge

opines that this matter should be summarily dismissed.

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. Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on September 25, 2023.

The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by October 10, 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 this matter is

subject to summary dismissal. 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. 9). Consequently, this action is summarily dismissed without prejudice. Because Plaintiff has already had an opportunity to amend, the matter is dismissed without leave for further amendment. IT IS SO ORDERED. peg Cader tons October 31, 2023 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge