Darrell Allen Findley v. Durham et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Darrell Allen Findley, #00209599, Case No. 1:25-12838-RMG

Plaintiff, v. ORDER Durham et al.,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 20) recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff was advised that a failure to timely file objections to the R & R would result in limited clear error review and a waiver of the right to appeal the District Court’s order. (Id. at 7). Plaintiff filed no timely objections to the R & R. I. Background Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Pickens County Detention Center, filed a pro se complaint that made allegations against a number of Detention Center staff members. The original complaint contained numerous deficiencies, and the Magistrate Judge issued a proper form order advising Plaintiff that she could not authorize a summons and service of process with the present complaint. Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint that failed to address significant deficiencies in the complaint, and a second proper form order was issued by the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff did not submit a second amended complaint or respond to the second proper form order in any manner. The Magistrate Judge then issued this R & R recommending that the case be dismissed for non- prosecution without prejudice and without further leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 20 at 6). Plaintiff did not file objections to the R & R. 1 II. Legal Standards A. Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

B. Pro Se Pleadings This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. See Weller v. Dep't of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990). III. Discussion After a de novo review of the record, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably summarized the factual and legal issues in this matter and correctly concluded that case should be dismissed for non-prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court adopts the R & R of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 20) as the order of the Court and dismisses this action without prejudice and with further leave to amend.

2 Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 20) as the Order of the Court and DISMISSES this action without prejudice and without leave to amend.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Richard Mark Gergel Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge

December 19, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina