ORDER

JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.

The pro se plaintiff, William Henry Strickland, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that the defendants have violated his constitutional rights.

The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation and opines that the complaint should be dismissed for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on October 27, 2011. Instead of filing objections to the Report, the plaintiff moved for an extension of time to respond to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, contending that he did not receive either of the court's orders of June 28, 2011 (Roseboro Order) and September 28, 2011 (order allowing the plaintiff until October 25, 2011 to respond to the Roseboro Order).

Out of an abundance of caution, this court allowed the plaintiff an extension of time until December 29, 2011 to file his response to the motion for summary judgment. That deadline has since passed and the plaintiff has again failed to file a response to the motion or the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper and incorporates the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.