James Bruce Hearne, II v. Berkeley County; Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office; Scott W. Lockwood; Bernard W. Nelson, Jr.; Hershul Tanner; Defendant Does 1-4 inclusive

Opinion

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA James Bruce Hearne, II, ) Civil Action No.: 2:25-3397-BHH ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Berkeley County, ) Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office, ) Scott W. Lockwood, ) Bernard W. Nelson, Jr., ) Hershul Tanner, and ) Defendant Does 1-4 inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________ ) Plaintiff James Bruce Hearne, II (“Plaintiff”) filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 23, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) On August 12, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 6.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review. On October 21, 2025, Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis that this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. (ECF No. 14.) 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 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). 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 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. 14), and the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) and dismisses this action on the basis that it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge November 5, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina