IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Denorris Hall, Jr., C/A No. 1:23-cv-5125-SAL

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

John Palmer, Warden; Thomas Robinson, Associate Warden; Stanley Terry, Major; Willie Davis, Regional Director; Samantha Birdette, Head Nurse; and Dennis Patterson, Assistant Deputy Director of Operations,

Defendants.

Denorris Hall, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this complaint pursuant to

against Warden John Palmer, Associate Warden Thomas Robinson, Major Stanley Terry, Regional Director Willie Davis, Samantha Birdette, Head Nurse, and Dennis Patterson, Assistant Deputy Director of Operations, (collectively, “Defendants”). See ECF No. 28. Pending before this court is a Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, in which she recommends the complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute. [ECF No. 63.] Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file objections to the Report.

. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report, and the time for doing so has lapsed. 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber,

, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part.

(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). CONCLUSION After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 56, should be terminated as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Sherr x. August 1, 2025 Sherri A. Lydon dom Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge