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

Jeremy Dye, ) Case No. 6:25-cv-00943-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Stephen Parker, ) ) Defendant. ) )

This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Doc. 20.] 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. Plaintiff filed this action pro se. [Doc. 1.] After granting Plaintiff two opportunities to amend his Complaint [Docs. 8; 12], on April 1, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report, recommending that the action be summarily dismissed without leave to amend and without issuance and service of process [Doc. 20]. 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 April 14, 2025, the Clerk docketed a letter from Plaintiff, which the Court construes as his objections to the Report. [Doc. 22.] 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. Mathews v. Weber,

, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part.

(b)(1). 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,

, 460 (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 Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing this action based on Younger abstention, because Defendant is entitled to immunity, and because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant. [Doc. 20.] In his objections, Plaintiff reiterates that he believes Defendant has harassed him and been unjust in his job. [Doc. 22.] 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 the 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 without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge May 8, 2025 Columbia, 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.