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

Bendray Thompson, Case No. 2:25-cv-6612-RMG

Plaintiff, v. ORDER United States Postal Service, Defendant.

Before the Court is the report and recommendation (R&R) of the Magistrate Judge recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with Court orders pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 17). Plaintiff was advised that she had 14 days to file objections to the R & R and a failure to timely file objections would result in clear error review and a waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff did not file objections to the R & R. I. Background Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed an action against Defendant for alleged loss of mail. Defendant moved to dismiss this action, and Plaintiff failed to respond. The Magistrate Judge issued an order extending the time to respond for an additional 14 days. Plaintiff still did not file a response to the motion to dismiss. The Magistrate Judge then issued the R & R recommending dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Plaintiff filed no objections to the R & R. II. Legal Standard The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The Court is charged with making 1 a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.

(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the Report for clear error.

See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). III. Discussion The Magistrate Judge has ably addressed the factual and legal issues in this matter and correctly concluded that this matter is subject to dismissal under Rule 41(b) for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders. IV. Conclusion In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the R&R as the Order of the Court (Dkt. No.

17) and DISMISSES THIS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_s/ Richard M. Gergel_ Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge

October 16, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina

2