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

Andre T. Felder, ) Case No. 6:25-cv-00437-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) K. Baker, Sheriff’s Deputy, ) ) Defendant. )

This matter is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant K. Baker (“Baker”). [Doc. 26.] 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 McDonald for pre-trial proceedings. On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff Andre T. Felder filed a pro se Complaint against Defendants Baker, T. Crann, T. Hannon, and A. Young. [Doc. 1.] On January 31, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued an order directing Plaintiff to bring his Complaint into proper form. [Doc. 7.] Plaintiff complied with the Court’s order. [See Doc. 15 at 1.] On March 3, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that all claims be dismissed except for Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Baker. [Doc. 15.] On April 1, 2025, the Court accepted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, leaving only Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Baker pending. [Doc. 20.] On April 1, 2025, Baker filed an answer to the Complaint. [Doc. 23.] On May 16, 2025, Baker filed a motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 26.] On May 19, 2025, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison,

(4th Cir. 1975), Plaintiff was advised of the motion for summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. [Doc. 27.] After Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment, the Magistrate Judge issued an order warning Plaintiff that he would recommend dismissal for failure to prosecute if Plaintiff did not respond to the motion for summary judgment by July 30, 2025. [Doc. 35.]

On August 6, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending the Court dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. [Doc. 39.] However, on August 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed a four-sentence response to the motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 41.] Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge vacated the previous Report and Recommendation. [Doc. 42.] On September 19, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. [Doc. 45.] 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 10.] The parties have not 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, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 45] is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge October 20, 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.