SOL BLATT JR., Senior District Judge
This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff's pro se complaint, which alleges violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By local rule, the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations.
On November 9, 2007, United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers III issued a report and recommendation ("R R") analyzing the Plaintiff's complaint and recommending that the Court dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Attached to the R R was a notice advising the Plaintiff of the right to file specific, written objections to the R R within 10 days of the date of service of the R R. To date, no objections have been filed.
Absent timely objection from a dissatisfied party, a district court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, a Magistrate Judge's factual or legal conclusions.Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); Wells v. Shriner's Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997). Here, because the Plaintiff did not file any specific, written objections, there are no portions of the R R to which the Court must conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's R R as the Order of this Court, and it is
ORDERED that the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for failure to state a claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.