IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION Beverly A. Gilchrist, ) Case No. 8:21-cv-02432-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) ) Charles L. Reel, Eydie J. Tillman, ) Jennifer P. Sumner, Odell Glover, ) Joseph V. Mosley, James A. McLaurin, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s pro se complaint and motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction.1 ECF Nos. 1, 10. In accordance with

(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 September 10, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending the motion for TRO and preliminary injunction be denied. ECF No. 15. The same day, the Magistrate Judge issued a second Report recommending that the complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process. ECF No. 16. At the end of each Report, the Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections 1 Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. ECF No. 8. to the Report and the serious consequences if she failed to do so. Plaintiff has not filed objections to either Report 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,

(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

(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.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of 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)).

After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Reports of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The motion for TRO and preliminary injunction [10] is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance of service of process.2

2 The dismissal is without leave to amend because Plaintiff cannot cure the defects as explained in more detail by the Magistrate Judge. See Bing v. Brivo Sys. LLC,

(4th Cir. 2020). IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge November 5, 2021 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.