Phillip Mitchell Butler and Charles Gene Butler v. CA Burns

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-02848
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

psEs DISTR lp ey > <3

@ ae AS Osu” IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION PHILLIP MITCHELL BUTLER and § CHARLES GENE BUTLER, § Plaintiffs, vs. § Civil Action No.: 5:24-2848-MGL § CA BURNS, § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION C AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING THIS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs Phillip Mitchell Butler (Phillip) and Charles Gene Butler (Charles), who are representing themselves, filed this civil action against Defendant CA Burns. Because Charles failed to sign the complaint or otherwise file any documents with the Court, the Court will dismiss him as a Plaintiff. 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 for lack of prosecution and failure to respond to a Court order. 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 November 22, 2024. Phillip filed his objections on December 3, 2024, and December 5, 2024. The Court has reviewed the objections but holds them to be without merit. It will therefore enter judgment accordingly.

Here, Phillip has failed to present any specific objections to the Report. His objections amount to general disagreements with the Report’s findings and merely repeat allegations the Magistrate Judge properly considered and addressed. To the extent Phillip 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 Phillip’s complaint in the Report. Therefore, the Court will overrule his objections. Further, inasmuch as the Magistrate Judge warned Phillip of the consequences of failing to file specific objections, Report at 4, 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). After a thorough review of the Report and record in this case under the standards set forth above, the Court overrules Phillip’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Charles is DISMISSED from this action, and this case is summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 17th 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 thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.