Whetsell v. Murnock

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Michael Brandon Whetsell, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 2:24-5487-BHH v. ) ) ORDER PFC Kevin Alexander Murnock and ) PFC Martinez, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Michael Brandon Whetsell’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 26, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 18.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review.

On February 6, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss and that Plaintiff be given additional time to effectuate proper service. (ECF No. 23.) The Magistrate Judge instructed Defendants to file a status report by February 14, 2025, which Defendants did. (ECF No. 25.)

Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising the parties of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Here, because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. For the reasons set forth in the Report, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18).

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge February 27, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina