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

Bilal Al-Haqq, ) Case No. 2:21-cv-01721-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) ) Kenneth L. James, Eyvonne Willingham, ) Joseph Canning, Elaine Freeman, Cpl. ) Lapoint, Mark Courtney, James ) Williams, Karen Mealer, Joshua McKie, ) Thomas Byrne, Ann Sheppard, ) Brian Kendell, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to

. In accordance with

(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 and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On March 21, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 107. On September 28, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. ECF No. 123. 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 did not file objections to the 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 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)). As stated above, Plaintiff has not objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report.

Accordingly, after considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [107] is GRANTED. The Court declines to label this action as a “strike” pursuant to

(g). IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge November 21, 2022 Spartanburg, South Carolina