Davis v. South Carolina Department of Social Services

Opinion

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Hercules Davis, III, ) Civil Action No.: 2:24-3693-BHH ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) South Carolina Department of ) Social Services, ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________ ) Plaintiff Hercules Davis, III, proceeding pro se (“Plaintiff”), filed thisaction in the Court of Common Pleas for Dorchester County. (ECF No. 1-1.) On June 26, 2024, Defendant removed the action to this Court. (ECF No. 1.) On July 3, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 8.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matters were referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review. On August 26, 2024, Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker filed a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 16.) Attached to the Report was a notice advising the parties of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 (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 Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific

objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. 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). Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Magistrate

Judge’s Report (ECF No. 16), and the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) and dismisses this action without prejudice and without leave to file an amended complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge September 18, 2024 Charleston, South Carolina