Jackson v. Sumter County Sheriffs Office Detention Center

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Jerrimire Jackson, C/A No. 0:24-cv-4364-SAL Plaintiff, v. ORDER Sumter County Sheriffs Office Detention Center; Anthony Dennis; Officer McCray, Defendants.

Jerrimire Jackson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the named defendants (“Defendants”). On October 16, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), recommending that the Court summarily dismiss this action for multiple reasons. [ECF No. 17.] The magistrate judge had earlier identified a number of deficiencies with Plaintiff’s complaint, and he failed to correct them in his amended complaint. See ECF No. 10, 14. At that point, the magistrate judge issued her Report recommending dismissal. [ECF No. 17.] Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Id. at 3. Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time for doing so has expired.

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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

After reviewing the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 17, and incorporates it by reference herein. As a result, Plaintiff's amended complaint is SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sherr tk.

December 3, 2024 Sherri KA Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge