Sweat v. Bright Heart

Opinion

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

Jeremy Shay Sweat, ) Case No. 2:23-cv-06419-JDA-MGB ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) OPINION AND ORDER v. ) ) Bright Heart, Pippines, Officer ) Johnson, Turbeville Correctional ) Institution, ) ) Defendants. )

This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Doc. 25.] In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for pre-trial proceedings. Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint was entered on the docket on December 11, 2023. [Doc. 1.] On April 4, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order explaining several specific deficiencies with Plaintiff’s claims and granting him leave to amend his Complaint. [Doc. 13.] Plaintiff was informed that failure to file an amended complaint or cure the deficiencies identified in the Order would subject some or all of his claims to summary dismissal. [Id. at 5.] Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within the time prescribed, and on July 8, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Defendant Turbeville Correctional Institution be summarily dismissed from the action without leave to amend. [Doc. 25.] 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. [Id. at 7.] Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time to do so has lapsed. 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, 270–71 (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 will review the Report only 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” (internal quotation marks

omitted)). The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, Defendant Turbeville Correctional Institution is summarily DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge September 17, 2024 Charleston, South Carolina NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.