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

Michelle Hodges, ) Case No. 6:25-cv-05755-JDA ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Gretchen Holland; Elizabeth Brown; ) Genevieve Johnson; Michael Nourie; ) Jason D. Wyman; S. Sterling Laney, ) III, ) ) Appellees. )

This matter is before the Court on Appellant’s pro se appeal from a bankruptcy court order [Doc. 1] and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. 19]. 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. On August 12, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Appellant’s motion for leave to appeal be denied and the appeal be dismissed.1 [Doc. 19.] The Magistrate Judge advised Appellant of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if she failed to do so. [Id. at 6.] Appellant did not file objections and the time to do so has lapsed.2

1 The Magistrate Judge treated Appellant’s notice of appeal [Doc. 1] as a motion for leave to appeal. [Doc. 19 at 3.]

2 The Court notes that some mailings sent to Appellant at a Post Office Box address have been returned as undeliverable. [Docs. 15; 21; 24.] When the first mailing was returned 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 this Court. 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, Appellant’s motion for leave to appeal [Doc. 1] is DENIED and this appeal is DISMISSED.

as undeliverable, the Clerk’s Office re-mailed all Orders that had been filed in this action to Appellant at a different physical address found in the bankruptcy court record [see Doc. 16], and that mailing has not been returned. The Clerk’s Office mailed the Report to both addresses [Doc. 20] and, although the mailing to the Post Office Box was returned [Doc. 24], the mailing to the physical address has not been returned. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge September 12, 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.