IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

Dennis Donald Parker and Susan Tiller ) Case No. 8:25-cv-08825-DCC Parker, ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Hon. Helen Burris, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ )

Petitioners, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion for an emergency stay on July 29, 2025. ECF Nos. 1, 3. 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 and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On August 22, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this action be summarily dismissed and that Petitioners’ motion be found as moot. ECF No. 7. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioners of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences for failing to do so. Petitioners have not filed objections to the Report and the time to do so has lapsed.1

1 The Court notes that the Report was initially mailed on August 22, 2025. ECF No. 10. On September 2, 2025, the Clerk’s Office received a phone call from Mr. Parker 1 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. See Mathews v. Weber,

(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. Co.,

(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.” (citation omitted)). As stated above, Petitioners have not filed objections to the Report. Upon review

for clear error, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. The motion for emergency stay [3] is FOUND as MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED.

stating that he had not received the Report. ECF No. 11. The Report was remailed on the same day. The first copy of the Report was returned as undeliverable on September 9, 2025. ECF No. 13. To date, the second copy has not been returned. 2 s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge October 9, 2025 Spartanburg, South Carolina

3