IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Bartholomew Richard Smith, Jr., ) Case No.: 4:25-cv-1065-JD-TER #1354147, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) VS. ) ORDER AND OPINION ) York County Detention Center, Lt. ) Hall, Sgt. Jincks, ) ) Defendants. )

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, (DE 13) issued under

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the District of South Carolina. The Report concerns the Magistrate Judge’s pre-service screening of Plaintiff Bartholomew Richard Smith, Jr.’s (“Plaintiff or “Smith”) Complaint under

A. Background The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which the Court incorporates herein. A brief summary is provided for context. Smith, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Defendants York County Detention Center (“York County”), Lt. Hall (“Hall”), and Sgt. Jincks (“Jincks”) under

1 The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which 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 with instructions.

(b)(1).

. (DE 1.) He alleges that Sgt. Jincks made threats against him, which were later carried out in the form of a physical assault. Plaintiff further alleges that Lt. Hall was aware of the threats, failed to intervene, and responded to Plaintiffs concerns with verbal abuse and indifference, allegedly stating “sue me.” (/d.) Plaintiff claims he suffered physical injuries—including bruises, headaches, and chest spasms—and did not receive timely medical treatment. (/d. at 6.) He seeks monetary damages. (Id.) Report and Recommendation On March 20, 2025, the Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiffs claims against York County be dismissed. (DE 13.) The Report, applying the less stringent standard afforded to pleadings filed by pro se litigants, see Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007); Gordon v. Leeke,

(4th Cir. 1978), concluded that York County is not a “person” within the meaning of section 1983 and, therefore, is not subject to suit under the statute. (DE 13 at 3.) No objections to the Report have been filed. B. Legal Standard In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983). The Court 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 & Acc. Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005).

C. Conclusion Having thoroughly reviewed the Report and the record in this case and finding no clear error, the Court adopts the Report (DE 13) and incorporates it herein by reference. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against the York County Detention Center are DISMISSED with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. Cheap Josaph Dawson, III United States District Judge Florence, South Carolina May 20, 2025

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order within thirty (80) days from this date under Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.