Mack v. Members Lounge Security Two Notch Rd Columbia SC

Opinion

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

John R. Mack, Jr., Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-7007-CMC

Plaintiff, vs. ORDER

Members Lounge Security Two Notch Rd Columbia SC; Members Lounge; Joseph McCall; Kathy Hill,

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Complaint, alleging he was assaulted by another patron at Members Lounge, a bar in Columbia, South Carolina. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings. On July 18, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending this action be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 8. 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 failed to file objections or any other filing with this court, 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 the Report 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.”) (citation omitted). After a review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error. Plaintiff does not allege federal question jurisdiction, and he and at least one defendant are citizens of South Carolina, destroying diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. This action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE Senior United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina August 12, 2025