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

Nathaniel A. Singletary, ) Case No. 9:24-cv-03132-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Jana Hollis, Stephen Ayers, Hilary ) Moore, Rod Rowe, Sgt. Roosevelt ) Anderson, Lieutenant Charles Frazier, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Doc. 46.] In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry for pre-trial proceedings. Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint was docketed on May 20, 2024. [Doc. 1.] On July 14, 2025, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 43.] The next day, this Court issued an Order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison,

(4th Cir. 1975), advising Plaintiff of the summary judgment/dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. [Doc. 44.] On September 9, 2025, after Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the matter be dismissed for lack of prosecution in accordance with Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. 46.] The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. [Id. at 4.] No party has filed objections and the time to do 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 the Court. See 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. 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” (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, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a result, Defendants’ summary judgment motion [Doc. 43] is FOUND AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge October 15, 2025 Charleston, 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.