Bilal A. Al-Haqq v. Ms. Lucas, Ms. Pugh, Ms. Bostic, Mr. Thomas, Lt. Fleming

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: March 13, 2026
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03960
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

Bilal A. Al-Haqq, ) Case No. 2:24-cv-03960-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Ms. Lucas, Ms. Pugh, Ms. Bostic, Mr. ) Thomas, Lt. Fleming, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s verified complaint alleging violations of his civil rights. ECF No. 1, 12. 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 Mary Gordon Baker for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). April 4, 2025, Defendnats filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 30. On April 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. ECF No. 33. On May 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed his own motion for summary judgment and a response to Defendants’ motion. ECF No. 35. Defendants filed responses in opposition to both motions. ECF Nos. 34, 36. On January 28, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and recommended that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and that Plaintiff’s motions be denied. ECF No. 40. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences for failing to do so. No party has filed objections to the Report 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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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. See 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.” (citation 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 Report’s recommendation. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [30] is GRANTED, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction [33] is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [35] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge March 13, 2026 Spartanburg, South Carolina