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

Devin Bailey, ) Case No. 6:25-cv-06567-JDA-KFM ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) East Greenville Summary Court, SC ) Highway Patrol, Officer Christopher L. ) Lee, ) ) Defendants. )

This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Doc. 17.] In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings. Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint in the Greenville County Court of Common Pleas on May 29, 2025, and it was removed to this Court on July 1, 2025. [Docs. 1; 1-1.] On July 18, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Defendants East Greenville Summary Court and South Carolina Highway Patrol be summarily dismissed because they are not “persons” under § 1983. [Doc. 17.] The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. [Id. at 6.] Plaintiff has not filed objections 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,

, 270–71 (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.,

(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)). The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, Defendants East Greenville Summary Court and South Carolina Highway

Patrol are summarily DISMISSED with prejudice and this case will proceed with respect to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Defendant Officer Christopher L. Lee. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge August 19, 2025 Greenville, 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.