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

Clarence D. Johnson, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-412-TMC v. ) ) ORDER Wells Fargo, Russell Moore, President ) Obama, President Trump, United ) Nations, St. Paul Baptist Church, Dale ) O’Shields, Rev. Melvin Whitley, and ) Pope Francis Paul, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________) On February 10, 2021, Plaintiff Clarence D. Johnson, a resident of Chicago, Illinois, brought this civil action pro se, alleging, among other things, that Presidents Obama and Trump harbored fugitives, that the Pope committed “crimes in religion,” and that the Defendants engaged in human trafficking. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff seeks one billion dollars in damages. Id. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. Now before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the magistrate judge recommending that this action be dismissed without issuance and service of process and that the court deny Plaintiff’s pending motions. (ECF No. 19). At the same time that he filed the complaint, Plaintiff filed a series of unintelligible motions, including motions to be heard (ECF No. 2); for a Speedy

Trial (ECF No. 3); for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 5); to “squash all statements” from “entrapment cases” (ECF No. 6); to be heard (ECF No. 7); for default judgment (ECF No. 8); for “foreign policy ICC Guidelines” (ECF No. 9); for

“United Nations Ethics Committee” (ECF No. 10); for Disbarment (ECF No. 11); to seal documents (ECF No. 16); and to appoint counsel (ECF No. 17). On February 11, 2021, the magistrate judge issued an order advising Plaintiff his action was not in proper form and directing Plaintiff to pay the applicable filing

fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 14 at 1–2). Plaintiff was further directed to complete the required documents for service of process on the named Defendants.

. The order also included the following

warning to Plaintiff: This case is not in proper form for service at this time. If Plaintiff does not bring this case into proper form within the time permitted by this Order, this case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of this Court under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(emphasis in original). Plaintiff was given twenty-one (21) days from the date of the order in which to submit the required documents and bring the case into proper form.

To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the order. The magistrate judge subsequently issued her Report concluding that “Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and has failed to comply with an Order of this Court” and recommending that the case be “dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (ECF No. 19 at 2). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and of the consequences of the failure to do so in a timely manner.

. Plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time for

doing so has expired. The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Wimmer v. Cook,

(4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews v. Weber,

, 270–71 (1976)).

In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. Greenspan v. Brothers Prop. Corp.,

(D.S.C. 2015) (citing Camby v. Davis,

, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983)).

Rather, “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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.

72 Advisory Committee’s note). After a careful review of the thorough Report issued by the magistrate judge and the record in this case in accordance with the above standards, the court finds

no clear error, and ADOPTS the Report (ECF No. 19) and incorporates it herein. This action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons set forth in the Report. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge April 5, 2021 Anderson, 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.