Lorenzo J. Ramsey, Joshua J.K. Ramsey, and Jasmine L. Ramsey v. Angela R. Taylor, Trevor C Brown, Cameron P. Prescott, Lisa Kee, Sumter County Sheriff Office, Social Security Administration, Sumter School District Office, Dept. Social Service DHEC, Steven B. Suchomski, Zendolyn S Green, John Keffer, Charles Blair, Lacey Kruseski, Thelma Salters, Lauren Taylor Stukes, and Judge Ralph W Canty

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: December 16, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00008
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Es ny Cori”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION LORENZO J. RAMSEY, JOSHUA J_K. § RAMSEY, and JASMINE L. RAMSEY, § Plaintiffs, § § vs. § Civil Action No.: 3:25-8-MGL § ANGELA R. TAYLOR, TREVOR C BROWN, § CAMERON P. PRESCOTT, LISA KEE, § SUMTER COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, § SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, — § SUMTER SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE, § DEPT. SOCIAL SERVICE DHEC, § STEVEN B. SUCHOMSKI, ZENDOLYN S § GREEN, JOHN KEFFER, CHARLES BLAIR, § LACEY KRUSESKI, THELMA SALTERS, § LAUREN TAYLOR STUKES, and § JUDGE RALPH W CANTY, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, SUMMARILY DISMISSING THIS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DEEMING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS Plaintiffs Lorenzo J. Ramsey (Lorenzo), Joshua J.K. Ramsey (Joshua), and Jasmine L. Ramsey (Jasmine), who are representing themselves, brought this civil action against the above- named Defendants. Because Joshua and Jasmine failed to sign the complaint or otherwise file any documents with the Court, the Court will dismiss them as Plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (“Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed . . . by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.”).

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting the Court summarily dismiss this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. 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 March 6, 2025. Lorenzo filed his objections and a motion to vacate on March 13, 2025. Lorenzo also filed six other motions to vacate, along with other miscellaneous motions. The Court will liberally construe his motions to vacate as objections. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (stating a “handwritten pro se document is to be

liberally construed”). Having reviewed Lorenzo’s objections, however, the Court holds them to be without merit. It will therefore enter judgment accordingly. Here, Lorenzo has failed to present any specific objections to the Report. Instead, his objections amount to general disagreements with the Report’s determinations and merely repeat allegations the Magistrate Judge properly considered and addressed. To the extent Lorenzo has brought any new arguments in his objections, they are conclusory and so lacking in merit as to make any discussion of them unnecessary. Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution, the Court has reviewed the Report and the record de novo. Suffice it to say, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s treatment of Lorenzo’s complaint. Therefore, the Court will overrule his objections. Further, inasmuch as the Magistrate Judge warned Lorenzo of the consequences of failing

to file specific objections, Report at 6, he has waived appellate review. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508–09 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding general objections are insufficient to preserve appellate review). Thus, after a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case under the standards set forth above, the Court overrules Lorenzo’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. It is therefore the judgment of the Court Joshua and Jasmine are DISMISSED from this action, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process. Given the Court’s ruling, all Lorenzo’s pending motions are necessarily DEEMED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 16th day of December 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of their 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.