Miyuki Maureen Johnson v. Carefree Rentals, LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Miyuki Maureen Johnson, C/A No. 3:26-cv-496-JFA-SVH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

Carefree Rentals, LLC,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Miyuki Maureen Johnson, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action against the above-named Defendant. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review. After performing an initial review of the complaint and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Magistrate Judge issued an order notifying Plaintiff that her complaint was subject to summary dismissal and her in forma pauperis motion lacked sufficient information. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff was then directed to file an amended complaint to cure deficiencies within her earlier filings. (ECF No. 7). The order warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order within the time permitted would subject this case to summary dismissal. Plaintiff did not respond to that order. Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation1 (“Report”). (ECF No. 12). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines the Complaint

1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this is subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.Id. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter,

and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation. Plaintiff was advised of her right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on March 17, 2026. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by March 31, 2026. Id. Plaintiff failed to file objections. Thus, this matter is ripe for review. A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not

required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 41. After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes

the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.

Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). (ECF No. 12). Consequently, Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) is denied and this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 16, 2026 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge