Lynch v. Legal Aid Society of Richmond

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION

John D. Lynch (II), Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-6143-CMC

Plaintiff, vs. ORDER

Legal Aid Society of Richmond and Stephen Dixon, Legal Counsel,

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 1. He appears to allege he contacted Legal Aid Society of Richmond and filled out an application for legal assistance after he was evicted from his apartment, yet was never contacted and as a result could not bring a legal claim to get his items out of his previous apartment. Id. at 5. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings. The Magistrate Judge issued a Proper Form Order and Order and Notice, advising Plaintiff of deficiencies in his Complaint and allowing him to file an Amended Complaint. ECF Nos. 10, 11. Plaintiff did not respond to the Orders, but filed a second motion for recusal, which was denied by the Magistrate Judge. ECF Nos. 13, 14. On July 25, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and insufficient allegations. ECF No. 17. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff did not respond to the Report and the time to do so has expired. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection

is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court is only required to review for clear error in the absence of an objection. 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). After considering the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report’s recommendation the matter should be dismissed. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report by reference in this Order.

This matter is hereby summarily dismissed without prejudice and without opportunity for amendment. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE Senior United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina August 19, 2025 2