ORDER AND OPINION

J. MICHELLE CHILDS, District Judge.

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report") filed on March 19, 2019. (ECF No. 27.) The Report addresses Plaintiff David Keith McElveen's suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and recommends that the court dismiss the case as to Defendant the South Carolina Department of Corrections ("SCDC"). (ECF No. 27 at 2.) For the reasons stated herein, the court ACCEPTS the Report, and DISMISSES the case as to SCDC.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards which this court incorporates herein without a full recitation. (ECF No. 27.) As brief background, on December 28, 2018, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his Complaint, alleging constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Specifically, in his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied access to a shower and, as a result, lost muscle mass. (Id.)

On March 19, 2019, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint be summarily dismissed against SCDC. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff failed to object.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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 only makes a recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no presumptive weight. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Id. at 271. As such, the court is charged with making de novo determinations of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Thus, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

III. DISCUSSION

The parties were apprised of their opportunity to file objections to the Report on March 19, 2019. (ECF No. 27.) Objections to the Report were due by April 2, 2019. (ECF No. 27.) However, objections were due by April 5, 2019, if a party was served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Id.) Neither party filed objections to the report.

In the absence of timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Instead, the court 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, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case. (ECF No. 27.) Because there are no objections, the court adopts the Report herein. Camby, 718 F.2d at 199.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 27). Therefore, the court summarily DISMISSES the case as to SCDC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.