Elmore, III v. Unknown

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Kenneth Charles Elmore, III, Case No. 2:25-cv-03890-RMG Plaintiff, v. ORDER Unknown Defendants, Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge, recommending this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. (Dkt. No. 9). The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff that if he did not file written objections to the R&R within 14 days, this Court would proceed with a clear error review, and Plaintiff would waive his right to appeal this Court’s Order. Id. at 7. Plaintiff filed no objections to the R&R. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R&R and dismisses Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process.

I. Legal Standard A. Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, “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.” See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation and punctuation omitted).

B. Pro Se Pleadings This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).

II. Discussion Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this civil action but fails to, among other deficiencies, articulate in his Complaint a cognizable cause of action or identify any defendants. (Dkt. No. 1).

The Magistrate Judge ably summarized Plaintiff’s Complaint and concluded that Plaintiff’s claims should be summarily dismissed because Plaintiff (1) fails to assert a basis for subject matter jurisdiction; (2) fails to state a cognizable claim; (3) fails to state a request for relief; and (4) fails to provide the necessary documents to bring his case into proper form.

The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably summarized the factual and legal issues involved in the R&R and correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s suit should be dismissed without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process.

III. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 9) as the Order of the Court and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard Mark Gergel Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge September 8, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina