UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Kathy Reaves, Case No. 4:22-cv-3065-TLW PLAINTIFF v. Richmond County Sheriff’s Office, Georgia Bureau of Investigation, ORDER Georgia Applicant Tracking System (GAPS), Gemalto Thales, Clayton County Public School District (CCPS), and Marlboro County Sherriff Office, DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Kathy Reaves, proceeding and , filed this civil action against the above-named defendants. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff brings her suit pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FRCA”),

. at 1. The Court is familiar with the factual allegations contained in Plaintiff’s complaint as Plaintiff has a number of pending actions and recently dismissed actions before this Court largely regarding the same set of facts. 4:22-cv-00318-TLW; 4:22-cv-00639-TLW; 4:22-cv-00856-TLW; 3:22- cv-01399-TLW; 4:22-cv-01806-TLW, Plaintiff’s complaint was referred to the Honorable Thomas E. Rogers, III, United States Magistrate Judge, for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 36b(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to

, which directs the court to dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, as well as when the complaint seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Accordingly, the magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), ECF No. 7,

recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice and without service of process. The matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation filed by the magistrate judge. In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be summarily dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief. at 8. In his thorough Report, the magistrate judge

extensively analyzes why Plaintiff has failed to state a claim as to each of these Defendants. at 1–8. Further, the magistrate judge notes that Plaintiff is currently pursing the claims against the defendants based on the incident in other actions before this Court. at 7; 4:22-cv-00318-TLW. Accordingly, he recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed because it both fails to state a claim and because “the Fourth Circuit states the rule against claim splitting ‘prohibits a plaintiff from prosecuting its case piecemeal and requires that

all claims arising out of a single wrong be presented in one action.’” (quoting ,

(4th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up)). Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report. This matter is now ripe for decision. The Court is charged with conducting a review of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report.

. In the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. ,

(4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “a district court need not conduct a 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.’” ,

(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). The Court has carefully reviewed the Report. For the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, the Report, ECF No. 7, is ACCEPTED. This matter is DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Terry L. Wooten Senior United States District Judge March 13, 2023 Columbia, South Carolina