IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GRENWOOD DIVISION

Joseph L. Hazel, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 8:23-cv-05796-TMC ) vs. ) ORDER ) Sgt. Givens, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________)

Plaintiff Joseph L. Hazel, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to

, alleging Defendant subjected him to excessive force in violation of his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 37 at 6). In accordance with

(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), (e) (D.S.C.), this matter was automatically referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. Now before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), (ECF No. 69), concluding that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant in his individual capacity and Eleventh Amendment immunity on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant in his official capacity,

at 13–14. Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 56). On December 10, 2024, the Report was mailed to Plaintiff at the address he provided the court. (ECF No. 70). The Report has not been returned to this court marked as “undeliverable,” so Plaintiff is presumed to have received it. Plaintiff was advised of his right to file specific objections to the Report and of the potential consequences of failing to do so. (ECF No. 69 at 15). Nonetheless, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report, and the time for doing do has expired. The magistrate judge’s recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. Wimmer v. Cook,

(4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews v. Weber,

, 270–71 (1976)). Nevertheless, “[t]he district court is only required to review de novo those portions of the report to which specific objections have been made, and need not conduct de novo review ‘when a party

makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.’” Farmer v. McBride, 177 Fed. App’x 327, 330–31 (4th Cir. April 26, 2006) (quoting Orpiano v. Johnson,

(4th Cir. 1982)); see also Elijah v. Dunbar,

(4th Cir. 2023) (noting “an objecting 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’” and “‘an objection stating only “I object” preserves no issue for review’” (quoting United States v. Midgette,

(4th Cir. 2007); Lockert v. Faulkner,

(7th Cir. 1988))). Thus, “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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee’s note). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions.

(b)(1). However, in the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Greenspan v. Bros. Prop. Corp.,

(D.S.C. 2015) (citing Camby v. Davis,

, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983)). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s judgment based upon that recommendation. See Elijah,

(quoting Lockert,

); Martin v. Duffy,

(4th Cir. 2017). Having reviewed the Report and the record and, finding no clear error, the court agrees with and wholly ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in the Report (ECF No. 69), which is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment, (ECF No. 56), is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge

Anderson, South Carolina February 10, 2025

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.