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

Alexis Dominguez, ) Case No. 7:25-cv-04765-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Express Collections, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleging violations of her civil rights pursuant to

. ECF No. 8. 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”). Since this action was removed, Plaintiff has filed several motions. At issue here is her motion for summary judgment filed August 13, 2025. Defendant filed a response in opposition, and Plaintiff filed a Reply. ECF Nos. 32, 36. On September 11, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motion be denied. ECF No. 38. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences for failing to do so. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and the time to do so has lapsed.1

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a motion to expedite discovery and case resolution and a renewed motion for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 48, 49. The Court 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)). After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the

Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error2 and agrees with the Report’s recommendation. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [30] is DENIED without prejudice to either party’s right to file a dispositive motion at the appropriate time. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.

has reviewed these documents and finds that they are not responsive to the Report and should not be liberally construed as objections. The Court further notes that the renewed motion for summary judgment is untimely as objections, even if the Court were inclined to so construe it.

2 Out of an abundance of caution, the Court notes that it would reach the same result upon a de novo review. United States District Judge November 4, 2025 Spartanburg, South Carolina