Glover v. United States

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Tekoa Tobias Glover, ) Case No. 6:22-cv-01895-JDA-MHC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) United States of America, Drug ) Enforcement Agency, D.E.A. Agent ) Farid Rajaee, ) ) Defendants. ) This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Docs. 147; 172.] In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry, for pre-trial proceedings.

On November 4, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report, recommending that Defendant D.E.A. Agent Farid Rajaee be dismissed from this action but that Defendants’ second motion to dismiss for lack of standing be denied. [Doc. 172.] The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. [Id. at 9.]

No party has filed objections 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 this Court. 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). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (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” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference.

Accordingly, Defendant Rajaee is DISMISSED from this action with prejudice and Defendants’ second motion to dismiss for lack of standing [Doc. 147] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge December 3, 2024 Greenville, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.