Hardaway v. Wilson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Kar’Seem Hardaway, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-1531-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Detective Daniel Wilson, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Kar’Seem Hardaway’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se complaint. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review.

In an order filed on May 29, 2025, the Magistrate Judge notified Plaintiff of certain pleading deficiencies and gave him the opportunity to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 26, 2025. (See ECF Nos. 9, 10.)

After reviewing Plaintiff’s amended complaint, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”) on August 8, 2025, outlining the issues and recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice, without issuance and service of process, and without further leave to amend. (ECF No. 13.) In the Report, the Magistrate Judge explained that: (1) Plaintiff fails to provide any facts to support a claim that Defendant violated his federal constitutional or statutory rights; (2) Plaintiff’s claim is precluded by the issuance of indictments in Charleston County; (3) Plaintiff has not alleged that criminal proceedings terminated in his favor to establish a claim for malicious prosecution; and (4) the statute of limitations bars claims concerning Plaintiff’s arrest in September of 2021. (Id. at 3-5.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Here, because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings of the Magistrate Judge for clear error.

After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.

Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 13), and the Court dismisses this action without prejudice, without issuance and service of process, and without further leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge August 29, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina