Jareca Talena Sumter, in her official capacity as Executrix of the Jareca...

EE oR a 8, ‘a nS oS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION JARECA TALENA SUMTER, in her official § capacity as Executrix of the Jareca Talena § Sumter Ecclesiastical Estate Trust, Ambassador § Plenipotentiary, and Mother of the Minor § Beneficiary, § Plaintiff, § Vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-6982-MGL § § AMANDA F. WHITTLE, in her officialand §& private capacity, Family Court Judge; O. § PEREZ, in his official and private capacity, § Attorney for the Solicitor; CLERK OF FAMILY§ COURT, in her official capacity as Custodian § of Records and Trustee of Judicial Instruments; § UNKNOWN PARTIES, to be added as § discovery proceeds, including agents and § officers operating against trust interest, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff Jareca Talena Sumter (Sumter), who is self represented, filed this lawsuit against the above-listed Defendants.

The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court this action be dismissed without prejudice.

The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.

Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on October 8, 2025, but Sumter failed to file any objections to the Report. “[I]n 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. It is therefore the judgment of the Court Sumter’s action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 29th day of October, 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. /s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Sumter is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.