IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Jamie Brian Ketcham, C/A No. 4:25-cv-1115-JFA-TER

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER Department of Defense,

Defendant.

Jamie Brian Ketcham, proceeding pro se, filed this filed this action utilizing a

form. 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 Petitioner’s filings, the Magistrate Judge prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation1 (“Report”). (ECF No. 8). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that this action is subject to dismissal because Petitioner is not in custody and his filings are frivolous.

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. Petitioner was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on February 26, 2025.

The Magistrate Judge required Petitioner to file

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). objections by March 12, 2025. /d. Petitioner 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 action 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. 8). Consequently, this action is summarily dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Cader tons April 2, 2025 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge