Hugh Parks Price v. Officer John Silcox, Officer Theodore MacLaughlin, Officer Suzanne Shealy, Saluda County

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-12702
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

Hugh Parks Price, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 8:25-cv-12702-TMC v. ) ) ORDER Officer John Silcox, Officer Theodore ) MacLaughlin, Officer Suzanne Shealy, ) Saluda County, ) ) Defendants. ) )

Plaintiff Hugh Parks Price, a pro se litigant, filed this action against Defendants in the Court of Common Pleas for Saluda County, asserting constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as various claims under state law. (ECF No. 1-1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), this matter was automatically referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings. Now before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), (ECF No. 20), recommending that the court deny Plaintiff’s motion to remand this action to state court (ECF No. 17). The Report was mailed to Plaintiff at the address he provided the court. (ECF Nos. 21). Because the Report has not been returned as undeliverable, Plaintiff is presumed to have received the Report. Plaintiff was advised of his right to file specific and timely objections to the Report and of the consequences of failing to do so, (ECF No. 20 at 6); nevertheless, he has not filed any objections, and time for doing so has expired. The magistrate judge’s recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. Wimmer v. Cook, 774 F.2d 68, 72 (4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976)). Nevertheless, “[t]he district court is only required to review de novo those portions of the report to which specific objections have been made, and need not conduct de novo review ‘when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.’” Farmer v. McBride, 177 Fed.

App’x 327, 330–31 (4th Cir. April 26, 2006) (quoting Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982)); see also Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2023) (noting “an objecting party ‘must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection’” and “‘an objection stating only “I object” preserves no issue for review’” (quoting United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988))). Thus, “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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.

2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee’s note). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, in the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Greenspan v. Bros. Prop. Corp., 103 F. Supp. 3d 734, 737 (D.S.C. 2015) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983)). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s judgment based upon that recommendation. See Elijah, 66 F.4th at 460 (quoting Lockert, 843 F.2d at 1019); Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017). Having reviewed the Report and the record and, finding no clear error, the court agrees with and wholly ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in the Report (ECF No. 20), which is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Report, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 17). IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain Chief United States District Judge

Anderson, South Carolina November 19, 2025

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.