IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Hoffman Electric, Inc., C/A No. 3:24-cv-2854-JFA-PJG

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER State of South Carolina; United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,

Defendants.

Ronald Hoffman, proceeding pro se, filed this action on behalf of Hoffman Electric, Inc. 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, the Magistrate Judge explained that corporations cannot proceed without counsel in federal court and ordered Plaintiff to retain counsel. (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff did not respond to that order, did not pay the filing fee, and counsel has not appeared on its behalf, and the deadline to do so has passed. Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation1 (“Report”). (ECF No. 10). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines the Complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to comply with a court order pursuant to Federal Rule of

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). 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. Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on July 22, 2024.

The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by August 5, 2024.

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 Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 41. 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. 10). Consequently, this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders. IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 21, 2024 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge