IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION

Derek Clark Antley, C/A No. 1:23-cv-6890-JFA

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER Aiken County Sheriff’s Department, Andrew L. Busbee, and Michael Hunt, in his Official Capacity as Sheriff of Aiken County,

Defendants.

Derek Clark Antley (Plaintiff) filed this action in state court on November 17, 2023. (ECF No. 1-1). Thereafter, Defendant removed the case to federal court pursuant to

and § 1446, asserting that this Court had original jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1). 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. On November 21, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 26). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition (ECF No. 29) to which Defendants filed a Reply. (ECF No. 30). On January 14, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Report), recommending that this Court grant summary judgment as to all of Plaintiff’s claims. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of his right to file objections to the Report and the consequences for failing to do so. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff did not 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 failed to raise any objections, and therefore this Court is not required to explain its decision to adopt the recommendation. A review of the Report and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly recommends granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, the Court finds that 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. 31). Consequently, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26) is granted, and Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Cptegl 5 Comaitom Gp March 14, 2025 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Court Judge

Page 2 of 2