Alston v. Lawson

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: April 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-04780
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

William Joshua Alston, C/A No. 2:24-cv-04780-SAL

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER Elizabeth Lawson, et al.

Defendants.

William Joshua Alston (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the named defendants1 (“Defendants”) on September 03, 2024. This matter is now before the court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) by United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker, who reviewed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 52.] The magistrate judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As set forth in the thirteen-page Report, multiple grounds support the dismissal of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff and counsel of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. Id. at 13. Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time for doing so has expired. The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a

1 Comparing Plaintiff’s complaint with Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court identifies the defendants as Elizabeth Lawson, Steve Garman, Jennifer Lawson, Nicole Mizell, Jennifer Royster, Danielle Winn, Chassidy Queen, and Beverly Giraldi. See ECF No. 1 at 1–2; ECF No. 26 at 1. de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and 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) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After reviewing the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, ADOPTS the Report, ECF No. 52, and incorporates it by reference. As a result, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 26, is GRANTED, Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED. IT ISSO ORDERED.

Shur t. April 30, 2025 Shern A. Lydon Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge