Thomas v. USDA Food and Nutrition Service

District Court, D. South Carolina

Thomas v. USDA Food and Nutrition Service

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Brian M. Thomas, Owner of Your Dollar Sto’ C/A No. 3:25-cv-02889-SAL LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

USDA Food and Nutrition Service,

Defendant.

Brian M. Thomas (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this complaint seeking judicial review under the Food Snap Act,

7 U.S.C. § 2023

(a) against the USDA Food and Nutrition Service. See ECF No. 1. Pending before this court is a Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, recommending the complaint be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. [ECF No. 29.] Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file objections to the Report.

Id. at 3

. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report, and the time for doing 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber,

423 U.S. 261

, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part.

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond vy. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,

416 F.3d 310, 315

(4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). CONCLUSION After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute.

IT ISSO ORDERED. Shae tk. September 16, 2025 Sherri A. Lydon Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown