Sanford v. Sumter School District

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: August 1, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-03807
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Heather Sanford and Stephen Sanford, C/A: 3:25-cv-3807-SAL

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER Sumter School District, Jeannine Pressley, Thomas Swearingen, and Dr. William Wright, Jr.,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Heather Sanford and Stephen Sanford, proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 29 U.S.C. § 764; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act; and the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. [ECF No. 1.] Plaintiffs named Sumter School District, Superintendent Dr. William Wright, Jr., Alice Drive Middle School, principal Jeannine Pressley, and assistant principal Thomas Swearngen as defendants. This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), recommending dismissal of this case. [ECF No. 15.] Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and outlining the consequences of failing to do so. Id. at 17. Plaintiffs have not filed objections, and the time for doing 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 this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After reviewing the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error and adopts the Report, ECF No. 15, and the reasoning therein. As a result, this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order and for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted under 28 ULS.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (ii). IT ISSO ORDERED. Sherr x. August 1, 2025 Sherri A. Lydon Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge