KIRANKUMAR PATEL v. DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION KIRANKUMAR PATEL, § Plaintiff, § § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:25-4653-MGL § § DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES § CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION § SERVICES, § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff Kirankumar Patel (Patel), who is self represented, filed this lawsuit against Defendant Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (the Director). The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and all pending motions be terminated. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on October 29, 2025, but Patel failed file any objections. “[I]n 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. It is therefore the judgment of the Court this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of prosecution, and the

Director’s motion to dismiss is RENDERED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 17th day of November, 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. /s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Patel is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within sixty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.