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

Flavil Barber, III, ) Case No. 6:24-cv-05112-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Alivia S. Waynick, Lauren Davis Price, ) Scotty Bodiford, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to

. ECF No. 1. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William S. Brown for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On November 18, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this action be dismissed without leave to amend and without issuance of service of process. ECF No. 19. 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. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and the time to do so has lapsed.1

1 The Court notes that all communications to Plaintiff from the Court have been returned as undeliverable. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, it appears Plaintiff has been released from custody and has not provided an updated address. Accordingly, the Court has no way to contact him regarding his case. 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,

(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.” (citation omitted)). After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the

Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report’s recommendation. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge January 15, 2025 Spartanburg, South Carolina