IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Christopher Allen Rainey, C/A No. 0:24-cv-1429-JFA-MHC

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER Agent Anne Bradley,

Defendant.

Christopher Rainey (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action pursuant to

, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The Complaint has been filed pursuant to

; § 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. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge conducted an initial review of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 21). Following the summary judgment motion, the Magistrate Judge issued a Roseboro order which specifically advised Plaintiff that if he failed to file a properly supported response, the Motion may be granted, thereby ending his case. (ECF No. 23). Despite this warning, Plaintiff failed to respond to the Motion or otherwise communicate with the Court. Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation1 (“Report”). (ECF No. 25). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines this action is

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). subject to dismissal for lack of prosecution 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. Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on January 16, 2025.

The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by January 30, 2025.

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. 25). Consequently, this action is dismissed for lack of prosecution. IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 24, 2025 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge