Orr v. Crayman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Jeremy Clay Orr, ) Case No. 4:24-cv-04477-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Crayman J. Harvey, Dr. Shafer, ) Ms. Lewis, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se amended complaint. ECF No. 9. 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 Thomas E. Rogers, III, for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On October 10, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this action be partially dismissed.

ECF No. 19. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing Defendant Harvey. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences for failing to do so. Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time to do so has lapsed.

APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 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 the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

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.” (citation omitted)).

AS noted above, Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report. Therefore, upon review for clear error, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Defendant Harvey is DISMISSED with prejudice and without further leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge December 12, 2024 Spartanburg, South Carolina