Audette v. Anderson County

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENVILLE DIVISION

Ronald Francis Audette, III, ) Case No. 8:25-cv-03781-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Anderson County, Anderson County ) Detention Center, Unknown ) Correctional Officers, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Doc. 27.] In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William S. Brown for pre-trial proceedings. On July 22, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. [Doc. 37.] The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. [Id. at 11.] No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has lapsed. 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 the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge

or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the

record in order to accept the recommendation” (internal quotation marks omitted)). After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge August 19, 2025 Greenville, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.