Es si eal Syne /S ny Cori”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION JOSHUA D. WASHBURN, § Plaintiff, § § VS. § Civil Action No. 1:25-571-MGL § THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, § ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON, § THE AIKEN CENTRAL TRAFFIC COURT, § MAGISTRATE JUDGE RONALD T. § THORNTON, COURT ADMINISTRATOR — § MARSHA MCDOWELL, CLERK OF § COURT SYDNEY BROOKS, LEGAL § ASSISTANT ANGIE C. LNU, COUNTY § OF AIKEN, MAYOR TEDDY MILLNER, § AIKEN CENTRAL TRAFFIC COURT § MAGISTRATES JUDGES, AIKEN, § CHIEF MAGISTRATE PATRICIA § YVONNE RUSHTON, and AIKEN § CENTRAL TRAFFIC COURT STAFF, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THIS MATTER WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE FOR AMENDMENT Plaintiff Joshua D. Washburn (Washburn), who is representing himself, filed this civil action against Defendants the State of South Carolina, Attorney General Alan Wilson, The Aiken Central Traffic Court, Magistrate Judge Ronald T. Thornton, Court Administrator Marsha McDowell, Clerk of Court Sydney Brooks, Legal Assistant Angie C. LNU, County of Aiken, Mayor Teddy Millner, Aiken Central Traffic Court Magistrates Judges, Aiken, Chief Magistrate

Patricia Yvonne Rushton, and Aiken Central Traffic Court Staff, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending the Court dismiss this matter without further

leave for amendment. The Report was made in accordance with

and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions.

(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on March 12, 2025. To date, Washburn has failed to file any objections.

“[I]n 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins,

, 845–46 (4th Cir. 1985). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case under the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without further leave for amendment. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 16th day of April 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Washburn is hereby notified of his right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.