Aaron L. Waring v. Concord Hospitality Enterprises Company, LLC d/b/a Hotel...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Case No. 2:24-cv-6927-RMG Aaron L. Waring Plaintiff, v. ORDER Concord Hospitality Enterprises Company, LLC d/b/a Hotel Indigo, Defendant. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of the Magistrate Judge recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution. (Dkt. No. 62). Plaintiff was advised that he had 14 days to file written objections to the R & R and a failure to file written objections would result in limited clear error district court review and waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the district court. (Id. at 6). No objections have been filed. I. Background Plaintiff was originally represented by counsel in this matter but counsel was allowed to withdraw because Plaintiff refused to comply with the requirements of discovery. (Dkt. No. 53). Plaintiff was directed to advise the Magistrate Judge within 21 days whether he intended to retain other counsel or proceed pro se. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff filed no response to the Magistrate Judge’s order within 21 days of its order or at any later date. The Magistrate then entered the R & R recommending this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuit to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 62). Plaintiff was advised he had 14 days to file written 1 objections to the R & R. (Id. at 6). Plaintiff filed no written objections. The matter is now ripe for disposition. 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, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the Report for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (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 Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably summarized the factual and legal issues in this matter and correctly concluded that this matter should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Court adopts the R & R of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 62) as the order of the Court and dismisses this action without prejudice. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. _s/ Richard M. Gergel_ Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge 2 March 13, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina 3