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

Tyrease Sherrod Martinez, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 9:23-cv-01989-TMC ) vs. ) ORDER ) Spartanburg County Detention Center, ) Spartanburg County, and Sheriff Chuck ) Wright, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________) Tyrease Sherrod Martinez (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this civil action pursuant to

. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. On July 18, 2023, the magistrate judge entered an order directing Plaintiff to bring the case into proper form within twenty-one (21) days and to notify the Clerk’s Office if his address changed. (ECF No. 5). The Proper Form Order was mailed to Plaintiff at the address he provided to the court, (ECF No. 6), and has not been returned as undeliverable. Thus, Plaintiff is presumed to have received it. Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to bring the case into proper form or to file any response to the court’s order, and the time to do so has expired. Now before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the court dismiss this case without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process for failure to state a claim and failure to bring this case into proper form. (ECF No. 8 at 4; 9-10). The Report was also mailed to Plaintiff at the address he provided, (ECF No. 9), and has also not been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff was advised 1 the time to do so has now run. The magistrate judge’s recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility

for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. Wimmer v. Cook,

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

, 270–71 (1976)). Nevertheless, “[t]he district court is only required to review de novo those portions of the report to which specific objections have been made, and need not conduct de novo review ‘when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.’” Farmer v. McBride, 177 Fed. App’x 327, 330–31 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Orpiano v. Johnson,

(4th Cir. 1982)); see also Elijah v. Dunbar,

(4th Cir. 2023) (noting “an objecting party ‘must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection’” and “‘an objection stating only “I object”

preserves no issue for review’” (quoting United States v. Midgette,

(4th Cir. 2007); Lockert v. Faulkner,

(7th Cir. 1988))). Thus, “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). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions.

(b)(1). However, in the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting

the recommendation. Greenspan v. Brothers Prop. Corp.,

(D.S.C. 2 file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s judgment based upon that recommendation. See Elijah,

(quoting

Lockert,

); Martin v. Duffy,

(4th Cir. 2017). Thus, having thoroughly reviewed the Report and the record under the appropriate standards and, finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (ECF No. 8), and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. The clerk of court shall provide a filed copy of this order to Plaintiff at his last known address. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Timothy M. Cain Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge

Anderson, South Carolina October 17, 2023

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.

3