ORDER AND OPINION

J. MICHELLE CHILDS, District Judge.

Plaintiff Jonathan Dendy ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff files this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully arrested and falsely imprisoned as a result of Defendants' actions. (ECF No. 1 at 4). Plaintiff seeks damages in the form of living expenses and lost wages. (ECF No. 1 at 5).

This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires the court to dismiss civil actions filed in forma pauperis if they are frivolous or fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald for a Report and Recommendation. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment along with a Memorandum in Support on November 12, 2015. (ECF No. 26). On November 13, 2015, the Magistrate Judge entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. (ECF No. 28). Subsequently, on February 17, 2016, the Magistrate Judge entered an order extending the deadline for Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants' motion. (ECF No. 31). No response was filed.

On March 15, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending the court dismiss the petition for lack of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (ECF No. 35). The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which this court incorporates herein without a recitation.

The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This court is charged with making a de novo determination 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 Magistrate Judge's recommendation, or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Objections to a Report and Recommendation must specifically identify portions of the Report and the basis for those objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "[I]n 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.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 35 at 3). Plaintiff was required to file objections by April 1, 2016. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the report, nor has Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, this court has reviewed the Report of the Magistrate Judge and does not find clear error.

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 35). Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26) is DENIED as moot. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's action (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.