Robert Ryan Delgadillo v. Lieutenant Hall

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Robert Ryan Delgadillo, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 8:25-cv-13504-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Lieutenant Hall, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Robert Ryan Deladillo’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review.

On November 24, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama because Plaintiff brings this action against a corrections officer employed in Elmore, Alabama, arising out of events that occurred there. (ECF No. 8.) 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. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report and instead filed a response in support, asking the Court to please transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. (ECF No. 10.)

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).

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 the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 8), and the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge January 6, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina