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

Devin Rashad Johnson, #356055, ) Case No.: 4:24-cv-3303-JD-TER ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER AND OPINION The State of South Carolina, Jeremiah S. ) Freeman, Robert L. Stucks, ) ) Defendants. ) )

This matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the District of South Carolina.1 (DE 8.) Plaintiff Devin Rashad Johnson, #356055, (“Plaintiff” or “Johnson”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Complaint pursuant to

, against Defendants The State of South Carolina, Jeremiah S. Freeman and Robert L. Stucks (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges the attorneys involved in his conviction violated his constitutional rights. (DE 1.) The Report was issued on June 14, 2024, recommending Plaintiffs claims under § 1983 be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (DE 8) Plaintiff did not file an objection to the Report. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983). The Court must “only

1 The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which 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 with instructions.

(b)(1). satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond vy. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, after a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Thus, the Court adopts the Report (DE 8) and incorporates it here by reference. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

‘Oo SOVL Josaph Dawson, III Florence, South Carolina United States District Judge August 5, 2024

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from this date, under Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.