Poinsette v. National Credit System

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Keyshon Poinsette, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-416-BHH v. ) ) ORDER National Credit System, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Keyshon Poinsette’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se complaint. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review. On March 24, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a proper form order giving Plaintiff the opportunity to bring the case into proper form for evaluation and possible service of process. (ECF No. 7.) Ultimately, however, the time for Plaintiff to bring his case into proper form expired, and Plaintiff has not provided the necessary documents to bring his case into proper form. Accordingly, on May 23, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court summarily dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 13.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific

objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. 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). Here, because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the

Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 13), and the Court dismisses this action without prejudice in accordance with Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge June 16, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina