IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Alexander B. Wilson, Jr., a/k/a Alexander C/A No.: 5:24-438-JFA-KDW Bernard Wilson Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER State of South Carolina; South Carolina Dept. of Mental Health; and South Carolina Dept. of Corrections,

Defendants.

Alexander B. Wilson, Jr. (Plaintiff), a civil detainee proceeding pro se, filed this action against the State of South Carolina, the South Carolina Department of Mental Health, and the South Carolina Department of Corrections seeking monetary damages. (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. After reviewing the Complaint, the Magistrate Judge issued an order notifying Plaintiff that his Complaint was subject to summary dismissal because he failed to allege sufficient factual allegations to state a claim. (ECF No. 16). The order further advised Plaintiff he had until March 11, 2024, to file an amended complaint or otherwise cure the identified deficiencies in his pleadings.

Plaintiff did not file a response to the February 26 Order. On January 15, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a thorough Report and Recommendation (Report), recommending that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order.1 (ECF No. 25). The Report further advised Plaintiff

1 The Magistrate Judge further held that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment of his right to file objections to the Report and the consequences for failing to do so. /d. at 5. Plaintiff failed to file objections and the time to do so has expired. 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 Judge’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. Consequently, this action is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Cader tons March 24, 2025 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2