Weldon Eugene Holtzclaw, Jr. v. Mary Kay Lee

Opinion

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

Weldon Eugene Holtzclaw, Jr., ) C/A No. 6:25-cv-09608-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Mary Kay Lee, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights. ECF No. 1. 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 Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On December 31, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice, without issuance and service of process, and without leave to amend. ECF No. 20. 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. Plaintiff filed objections, a letter, and two motions to amend. ECF Nos. 22, 24, 25, 26. APPLICABLE LAW 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 (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.” (citation omitted)). ANALYSIS As an initial matter, the Magistrate Judge has provided a thorough recitation of the relevant facts and applicable law, which the Court incorporates by reference. Because Plaintiff filed objections, the Court’s review has been de novo. Upon de novo review, the

Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.1 The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of the present action because Defendant is not a state actor as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and because the complaint is frivolous. In his various filings, Plaintiff makes several allegations against Defendant; however, none of these allegations attempt to explain how she could be considered a state actor. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge's

1 To the extent any allegations or statements in Plaintiff’s letter or motions to amend should be considered as objections, the Court has done so. discussion and finds that this action is subject to dismissal because Defendant is not a state actor and because the complaint is frivolous.2 To the extent ECF No. 12 should be liberally construed as an appeal of ECF No.

9, the Court addresses that here. The Magistrate Judge's order is non-dispositive. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits a party to submit objections/appeals to a magistrate judge's ruling on non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (“A judge of the court may reconsider any [non-dispositive] pretrial matter . . . where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.”). The objections/appeal must be filed and served within 14 days after being served a copy of the non-dispositive order. Id. Further, the Court's review is governed by the clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard of review. Id. Only if the decision is clearly erroneous or contrary to law may the district judge modify or set aside any portion of the decision. Id. A court's “finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although

there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948). The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's order and Plaintiff’s appeal. Upon such review, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the appeal is denied.

2 To the extent any of Plaintiff’s filings request that Defendant be criminally prosecuted, he “has no enforceable right to insist upon such action.” Sewell v. Wagner, No. CV GJH-16-2458, 2016 WL 10688817, at *1 (D. Md. Aug. 29, 2016), aff'd, 710 F. App'x 117 (4th Cir. 2018). With respect to Plaintiff’s motions to amend, the Court finds that they should be denied pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. In ECF No. 25, Plaintiff makes allegations against Defendant; however, as noted above, does not attempt to clarify how

any of her actions can be attributed to the state. In ECF No. 26, Plaintiff requests to add Judge McDonald and the “new owner of record” to this action. Judge McDonald is entitled to judicial immunity and there is no indication or allegation that the new owner of record is a state actor. Accordingly, the motions to amend are denied as futile. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court agrees with the Report of the Magistrate Judge. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice, without issuance and service of process, and without leave to amend. The motions to amend [25, 26] are DENIED. Plaintiff has established himself as a frequent filer in this Court. Therefore, any further filings in this case will be reviewed but will not receive a response unless one is

deemed necessary by the undersigned or Magistrate Judge McDonald. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge July 10, 2026 Spartanburg, 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.