= 3 Be

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION SHAHID MAJID, § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION 8:22-3546-MGL § CPT. LLOYD, LT. LEVELS, and SCDC, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 56(D) AND FORMAL COMPLAINT/MOTION FOR EXTENSION/MOTION FOR RELIEF, AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Shahid Majid (Majid), who is self-represented, filed his lawsuit against Defendants Cpt. Lloyd, Lt. Levels, and SCDC (collectively, Defendants). The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (the Report) suggesting both Majid’s’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) request and “Formal Complaint/Motion for Extension/Motion For Relief” be denied and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.§ 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions.

(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on May 12, 2025, but Majid failed to file any objections to the Report, even after the Court granted him three generous extensions of time to do

so. “[I]n 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins,

(4th Cir. 1985). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set

forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. It is therefore the judgment of the Court both Majid’s’s Rule 56(d) request and “Formal Complaint/Motion for Extension/Motion For Relief” are DENIED and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 8th day of September, 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. /s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

**** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Majid is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date

hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.