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

Mack Allen Davis, ) Case No. 4:24-cv-05970-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Shelia Gause Flavo, Clp.; Sandy ) Lowe, Sgt.; LcPl. Hale, Unit Manager; ) Joel Dixon, Unit Manager; Terry ) Adkins, Lt.; Lcpl Cainwright; Ronald ) Hazzard, Public Defender Office; ) James C. Galmore, Public Defender ) Office; Michael Suggs, Public ) Defender Office; Jimmy Richardson; ) Catherine Girgan, )

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Doc. 9.] In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate William S. Brown for pre-trial proceedings. Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint on October 21, 2024. [Doc. 1.] On November 26, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending dismissing this action without service of process and without leave to amend given Plaintiff’s failure to state a federal claim upon which relief can be granted. [Doc. 9.] The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. [Id. at 13.] On December 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. [Doc. 11.] 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,

, 270–71 (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

(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.,

(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)). Although “objections need not be novel to be sufficiently specific,” Elijah v. Dunbar,

(4th Cir. 2023), “a 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,” Martin v. Duffy,

(4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Regassa v. Warden of FCI Williamsburg, No. 8:22-cv-466- SAL,

, at *2 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2023) (concluding an objection was non- specific because the petitioner “ignore[d] the magistrate judge’s analysis and repeat[ed] the arguments he made in his opposition brief”); Velez v. Williams, No. 9:19-cv-03022- JMC,

, at *5 (D.S.C. Mar. 5, 2021) (reviewing for clear error only when the petitioner’s objections were “rehashed, general, and non-specific”), appeal dismissed,

(4th Cir. Dec. 13, 2021). “Even so, when confronted with the objection of a pro se litigant, [courts] must also be mindful of [their] responsibility to construe pro se filings liberally.” Martin,

. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s objections, liberally construed, fail to address the Report’s findings and recommendations. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of

caution for a pro se party, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report, the record, and the applicable law. Upon such review, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge January 10, 2025 Greenville, South Carolina

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.