Burkhart v. Morin

Opinion

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

Thomas James Burkhart, #288275, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-9581-CMC

Plaintiff, vs. ORDER

Brandon Morin; Nickolas Barker; Bed Bath and Beyond; George Robinson; Mary Frances O’Grady; Joshua Tuper; Mark Christensen; Dennis Hall; Jeremy Frank; Mike Murphy; Kevin Creed; Jessica Abdullah; Dorthy Boyd Hall; Angel LNU; William McKellar; Farmers Furniture; Jack Hammick; Michael Williams; Solomon Turner; President Donald Trump; Bryan Stirling; Richard Sullivan; Jeremy Frank; Justin Poindexter; Ashley Myer; Aiken County Sheriffs Department; Aiken City Police Department; Jackson City Police; Savannah River Site; Chicago Bridge and Iron; South Carolina Department of Corrections; Turbeville Correctional; Google; Linkdin; ViaPath LLC; www.gettingout.com; Touch Pay Holdings LLC, a/k/a GTL Financial Services; Connectnetwork.com; Westlaw National Reporter System; Carpenters & Millwrights Local 283 Union; Patience Barkhart Stone; Tom Jenkins,

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and other federal statutes. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings. The Magistrate Judge issued a Proper Form Order and Order and Notice, advising Plaintiff of deficiencies in his Complaint and allowing him to file an Amended Complaint. ECF Nos. 5, 6. Plaintiff did not respond. On September 5, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending this matter be dismissed without leave for further amendment. ECF No. 8. 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. Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time to do 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 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 is only required to review 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After considering the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report’s recommendation

2 the matter should be dismissed. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. This matter is hereby summarily dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE Senior United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina October 1, 2025