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

Darrell Denteze Horry, ) Case No. 2:23-cv-02084-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Officer Tew, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of his civil rights. 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 and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On December 20, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 141. The same day this Court issued an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison,

(4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the summary judgment/dismissal procedure and the possible consequences for failing to respond adequately. ECF No. 142. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion. The Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff another opportunity to pursue this case; to date, Plaintiff has not filed a response. ECF No. 145. On March 4, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or, in the alternative, that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted upon review of the merits. ECF No. 148. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences for failing to do so. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and the time to do so has lapsed.

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. See Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See

(b). 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.” (citation omitted)). After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report’s recommendation. This action is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 41(b). The motion for summary judgment [141] is FOUND as MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge May 30, 2025 Spartanburg, South Carolina