Donaldson v. Cherokee County Detention Center

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: October 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01967
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Jeffery Brian Donaldson, C/A No. 2:25-cv-01967-JFA

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER Cherokee County Detention Center; Southern Health Partners; and Nurse Brittany,

Defendants.

Jeffery Brian Donaldson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review. After performing an initial review of the Complaint, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action notified Plaintiff of several deficiencies and gave him an opportunity to bring his claim into proper form. (ECF No. 5). Two weeks thereafter the Magistrate Judge received a Notice of Change of Address from Plaintiff. (ECF No. 15). Because it was unclear whether Plaintiff received the Magistrate Judge’s previous order, the Magistrate remailed a copy of the order to Plaintiff’s new address and reset the deadline for Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint. (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff failed to comply with this order or otherwise respond. Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge conducted a review of the Complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), including 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation1 (“Report”).

(ECF No. 18). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that this action is subject to summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).2 Id. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation. Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on September 4, 2025. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections

by September 18, 2025. Id. Plaintiff failed to file any objections and the time for doing so has elapsed. Thus, this matter is ripe for review. A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th

Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). 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 (1976).

2 To protect against possible abuses, this statute allows a district court to dismiss certain cases upon a finding that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or is frivolous or malicious. Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiffs Complaint is subject to summary dismissal. After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 18). Consequently, this action 1s dismissed without prejudice, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. Cader tons October 8, 2025 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge