Michael Brandon Whetsell v. Kevin Alexander Murnock & PFC Martinez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Michael Brandon Whetsell, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-5487-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Kevin Alexander Murnock & PFC ) Martinez, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Michael Brandon Whetsell’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1.) On June 11, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 50.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings.

On October 2, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court deny Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 71.) Attached to the Report was a notice advising the parties of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Here, no objections have been filed, and the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 71), and the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 50).

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge October 22, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina