R. BRYAN HARWELL, District Judge.
Plaintiff Vincent E. Johnson ("Plaintiff") filed the above pro se action against Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe ("Defendant"), alleging various causes of action arising from his employment with the United States Postal Service ("USPS").
On April 15, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, along with a memorandum in support. Plaintiff filed his Response on April 23, 2013. This matter is before the Court after the issuance of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III.
For the following reasons, this Court adopts the R&R.
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the district court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the district court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the magistrate judge's report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only "general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) ("[D]e novo review [is] unnecessary in . . . situations when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendation."). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of a specific objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, in the absence of specific objections to the R&R, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315; Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reiterates that it may only consider objections to the R&R that direct this Court to a specific error. Plaintiff's objections argue that he is entitled to summary judgment,
To the extent Plaintiff, in his objections, attempts to argue that the magistrate incorrectly ruled that "[t]here are no allegations of age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. or violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.," this objection is overruled. [See R&R, Doc. # 90, at 2.] Plaintiff's objections do nothing to refute the magistrate's supported finding that these issues are not properly before the Court as they were not raised in Plaintiff's Complaint. See, e.g., Peter B. v. Buscemi, No. 6:10-767, 2013 WL 869607, at *5 (D.S.C. March 7, 2013) (holding that issues and arguments were not properly before the court as the claims were not raised in the complaint).
The Court has thoroughly analyzed the entire record, including the R&R, objections to the R&R, and the applicable law. The Court has further conducted the required review of all of the objections and finds them without merit. For the reasons stated above and by the magistrate, the Court hereby overrules all of Plaintiff's objections and adopts the R&R.