IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION

Lurekus Leonard Davis, #083430 C/A No. 3:25-cv-3778-JFA

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER Senator Darrell Jackson and Sheriff Leon Lott,

Defendants.

Lurekus Leonard Davis (Plaintiff), proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to

on May 5, 2025. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review. After reviewing the complaint, the Magistrate Judge issued a thorough Report and Recommendation (Report), recommending the dismissal of Plaintiff’s case pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii). (ECF No. 9, pg. 3). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s claims were frivolous and failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. at 6–7. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of his right to file objections to the Report and the consequences for failing to do so. Id. at 8. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff did not file objections. Thus, this matter is ripe for review. A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See

(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole,

(4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983). Here, Plaintiff failed to raise any objections, and therefore this Court is not required to explain its decision to adopt the recommendation. A review of the Report indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly recommends summary dismissal of Plaintiff's case. After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 9). Consequently, Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice and without leave for amendment.! IT IS SO ORDERED Cptegl 5 Comaitom Gp June 30, 2025 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Court Judge

'On May 19, 2025, Plaintiff asked the Court to “allow [him] time to hire a civil attorney.” (ECF No. 11). However, as the Magistrate Judge explained, “Plaintiffs claims are fantastic, delusional, and clearly baseless.” (ECF No. 9, pg. 7). Accordingly, the Court finds that no amount of legal assistance would cure the deficiencies outlined in the Report. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 11) is dismissed as moot.

Page 2 of 2