Johnathan Goss, also known as, Johnathan Antonio Goss, #346544 v. Entire Guard Staff of The G.C.D.C.

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: November 21, 2025
• Docket: 9:25-cv-09577
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION Johnathan Goss, also known as, Case No. 9:25-cv-09577-RMG Johnathan Antonio Goss, #346544,

Plaintiff, v. ORDER

Entire Guard Staff of The G.C.D.C.,

Defendant.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge, recommending that this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without service of process for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and failure to bring the case into proper form. (Dkt. No. 7, at 2-6). Plaintiff was given notice that he had 14 days from the date of the R&R to file any objection, which, with three additional days for mailing, required the filing of objections on or before November 17, 2025. Id. at 7. The Court has received no objection.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R&R as the Order of the Court and dismisses this action without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without service of process.

1 On October 28, 2025, the Clerk of Court mailed a copy of the R&R to Plaintiff at his address of record. (Dkt. No. 8). On November 10, 2025, the Court received notice that the mailing was returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. No. 9). To date, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with an updated address. 1 I. Background Plaintiff was a detainee at Greenville County Detention Center (“GCDC”) in Greenville, South Carolina.2 (Dkt. No. 1). In a handwritten letter, which the Court construes as his Complaint, Plaintiff appears to complain about the conditions of his confinement and asks the United States District Court of South Carolina what it will do about the conditions. Id. at 1-3. II. Legal Standard 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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objections are made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, “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) (citation and punctuation omitted). 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, 322 (1972); Haines v. Kerner,

2 An inmate search of GCDC indicates that Plaintiff is no longer detained there. (Dkt. No. 10). 2 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (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 Soc. Servs. for City of Balt., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).

III. Discussion After making its best efforts to decipher Plaintiff’s arguments, the Magistrate Judge found that this action should be summarily dismissed for (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) failure to state a claim; and (3) failure to bring the case into proper form. (Dkt. No. 7, at 2-6). The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably addressed the factual and legal issues in this case and correctly concluded that the case should be summarily dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and failure to bring the case into proper form. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 7) as the Order of the Court and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without service of process. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard Mark Gergel Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge

November 21, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina