IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CLARKSBURG CARL CHAVON MOSLEY, Plaintiff, v. Civ. Action No. 1:20-CV-142 (Kleeh) JERRY PRITT, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 8] On July 22, 2020, the pro se Plaintiff, Carl Chavon Mosley (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at Huttonsville Correctional Center (“HCC”), filed a complaint in this action pursuant to

. Plaintiff argues that an HCC staff member used racial slurs in reference to him, in violation of his rights under the United States Constitution.

Pursuant to

and the local rules, the Court referred the action to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi for initial review. On July 29, 2020, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. The R&R also informed the parties that they had fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the R&R to file “specific written objections, identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 8] objection.” It further warned them that the “[f]ailure to file written objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals.” The docket reflects that Plaintiff accepted service of the R&R on August 3, 2020. See ECF No. 9. To date, no objections have been filed.

When reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court must review de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely made.

(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, “the Court may adopt, without explanation, any of the magistrate judge’s recommendations” to which there are no objections. Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez,

, 603–04 (N.D.W. Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will uphold portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been made unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005). Because no party has objected, the Court is under no

obligation to conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, the Court reviewed the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 8]. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to disregard the Court’s Notice of Deficient Pleading [ECF No. 6]. Plaintiff’s motion for initial ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 8] review [ECF No. 2] and motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 3] are DENIED AS MOOT. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court further ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendant. It is so ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff via certified mail, return receipt requested. DATED: August 26, 2020 _/_s_/_ _T_h_o_ma_s_ _S_._ _K_l_e_e_h__________ THOMAS S. KLEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE