IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Taii-ko Monteiro-Bells, C/A No. 3:25-cv-9583-JFA-PJG

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER Paul Douglas DeHoll,

Defendants.

Taii-ko Monteiro-Bells (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action alleging medical malpractice. The Complaint has been filed pursuant to

; § 1915A. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review. After performing an initial review of the complaint, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation1 (“Report”). (ECF No. 9). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that this action should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process because Plaintiff has failed to show that the court has jurisdiction over her claims.

The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.

1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with

(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). 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 the Court. Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). Plaintiff was advised of her right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on August 18, 2025.

The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections

by September 2, 2025.

Plaintiff failed to file any objections and the time for doing so has elapsed. Thus, this matter is ripe for review. A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See

(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole,

(4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this

Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983). Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s

Complaint is subject to summary dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.

(ECF No. 9). Consequently, this action is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process because Plaintiff has failed to show that the court has jurisdiction over her claims. IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 30, 2025 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge